The Corporation/Pfizer looking stupid

[losin_it]

So anyone here watch The Corporation?

Great movie addressing corporations and their effect on the community. Merck was listed as a corporation that got sued by the goverment for illegal practices. A Pfyizer rep looks like a total idiot when he tires to use an emergency phone that Pfizer installed in a public subway, (to win over public opinion on the companies image) and no guard from the Pfizer desk shows up to assist. Way to go Pfizer, helping our streets stay safe! (Theres more to it but too long to get into here.)

Anyway, after watching this flick you wont be so niave to think that pharmacutical companies and the FDA are unable to exhibit total disregard for your saftey in exchange for your money.

 

[Petchsky]

I have seen this...it's a very good documentary that helps you to see a little clearer when it comes to corporations and their main objectives.

 

[The Gardener]

Well, that is one side of the story. But, despite the innate greed that makes corporations run, there is a bright side. Let's do a side by side comparison of societies that favor the formation and smooth running of corporations, and societies that hinder corporate activity.

GROUP A - Earth societies that favor corporate activity, give corporations tax breaks, maintain liberal capital markets, and generally make life easier for corporations:

US
UK
France
Germany
Japan
etc.

GROUP B - Earth societies who shun corporate activity, either by instituting policies that place heavy burdens on corporate activity, or by out and out hostility towards corporations, or even further, support nationalization of corporate activity:

Former USSR
Former Eastern Europe
Cuba
North Korea
Pre-NAFTA Mexico
Former Iraq

Given you had to choose a place to live, work, and raise your family, would you rather choose a nation in Group A, or Group B? You can see by the list that several of these former anti-corporate societies have now come around to the corporate camp, Russia, for instance. Their experience has so screwed up their country that even now, with liberal markets, it still lags far behind the West.

Corporations might have some ill effects, but one cannot discount the fact that in the big picture they do a lot more good than harm.

 

[Guest]

Well, that is one side of the story. But, despite the innate greed that makes corporations run, there is a bright side. Let's do a side by side comparison of societies that favor the formation and smooth running of corporations, and societies that hinder corporate activity.

GROUP A - Earth societies that favor corporate activity, give corporations tax breaks, maintain liberal capital markets, and generally make life easier for corporations:

US
UK
France
Germany
Japan
etc.

GROUP B - Earth societies who shun corporate activity, either by instituting policies that place heavy burdens on corporate activity, or by out and out hostility towards corporations, or even further, support nationalization of corporate activity:

Former USSR
Former Eastern Europe
Cuba
North Korea
Pre-NAFTA Mexico
Former Iraq

Given you had to choose a place to live, work, and raise your family, would you rather choose a nation in Group A, or Group B? You can see by the list that several of these former anti-corporate societies have now come around to the corporate camp, Russia, for instance. Their experience has so screwed up their country that even now, with liberal markets, it still lags far behind the West.

Corporations might have some ill effects, but one cannot discount the fact that in the big picture they do a lot more good than harm.

!!! Yikes, Gardener...I usually agree with and find logic in most of what you say, but look at the "failed" nations you chose: four out of your six examples were or are communist, one was totalitarian and post NAFTA Mexico is an economic nightmare, one of Clinton's biggest f-ups. I don't think many people will argue communism was a giant failure; what that's got to do with nations that don't open their doors to US globalization, I'm not sure. Furthermore, there's very little liberalism in Russian markets. After the wall fell, all of the privitization was enjoyed by wealthy cronies of the old union, who are now being persecuted by the cronies who made the transfer to "democracy". Anyway, point being, even if you were to look at examples within America, you'd find that communities that bend over backwards to allow corporate investment and development usually benefit very little, and often experience the back-lash of out-sourcing. Check out a cool book called "What's the matter with Kansas?" It talks about a lot of this stuff.

 

[The Gardener]

AP-Nate, I'm not necessarily proposing an argument specifically in favor of American "style" capitalism. I am proposing an argument in favor of capitalism and free markets in general.

There are greedy corporations in France, too. Additionally, some of the largest pharma companies that we are all bashing are based in the UK, Switzerland, and Germany, in addition to the ones based in the US.

The point I am making is that despite the greed and all the terrible things that corporations get away with, we should look at the standard of living that the West has as compared with other nations who do not let corporations operate, or discourage the operation of corporations. In fact, I would suggest that the presence of a healthy environment for corporations might just be one of the main differentiators of rich economies like we have in the West, and poor or poorer economies as we are now seeing in nations who actively discouraged corporations. Some of these nations discouraged corporations for reasons of social justice (USSR, et. al.), some did so out of post-colonial resentment and a willingness to remain separate from the capitalist West (Mexico, et. al.) The results have all been the same, namely failure.

Even if nations don't prefer an American style of capitalism, they will have to play ball and open their markets if they expect any investment capital to flow in.

Case in point are the two Koreas. One hitched their wagon to communism, the other hitched their wagon to the US. One is a glorious failure, the other a stunning success. Even more remarkable is that before the post WW2 division of Korea, the North was actually already fairly industrialized, and the South was actually quite agrarian and less developed. Even with this handicap, the South has blossomed and the North is, well, bankrupt and starving.

 

[Guest]

Yes, I understood your distinction between Americanism and capitalism; I just find America is usually the best example.

A capitalist environment behooves a country insofar as that country sees the gains. What about every second and third-world country that opens its doors to corporations, only to see their environments stripped, their work forces turned into borderline slave labor, and the dictatorships that do the opening to thrive? Indonesia, Mexico, the Phillipines, various central and south American countries; these places are the home of many corporations' major work forces, and yet they remain firmly entrenched in third-world poverty. They also usually support the dictatorships in power and prevent democratic/socialist reform, as this would require those corporations that globalize to pay fairer wages, implement environmental mechanisms and allow for unionizing. Rarely does capitalism bring with it rejuvinating powers. India and China have realized that only by changing their governments and modernizing their industries and work forces does economic reform have a chance. It's hard to modernize your work forces when they're being paid 2 cents an hour.

 

[The Gardener]

Most of the improverished people in those nations are impoverished not because they aren't getting 'good wages' at a western company's factory, they are impoverished because they don't have any jobs.

What you refer to as a 'slave wage' might actually be a fair wage given that local economy's cost of living. We in the west have a very high cost of living as compared to much of the developing world, so it is not fair to compare what a buck gets you in the US versus what it gets you in rural Sri Lanka.

Forcing western companies to raise wages at these factories in developing countries is not the answer either. That has been tried, and what happened is that locals who were trained as doctors and scientists started applying for jobs making shoes at the western factory because the pay was over the prevailing wage that local industries were offering. The local industries then accused the western company of unfair labor practices by taking all of the talented people away from indigenous business, or from businesses like hospitals where they could best add value to their society. So, better to have a job that pays a low, but prevailing wage than to have no job at all because the western factory is chased out of town by local legislators.

Which nations are governed by dictators?

You are right about India and China making changes to bring improvement and economic reform... they are changing allright, namely becoming MORE capitalistic and MORE integrated with globilazation, and less regulation and socialism.

 

[losin_it]

Most of the improverished people in those nations are impoverished not because they aren't getting 'good wages' at a western company's factory, they are impoverished because they don't have any jobs.

quote]


This is great exchange, thanks for your input guys.

I do have to disagree with this part of your post though. The money that Nike pays its employees does not cover the cost of living in those countries. We shouldnt make comparisons to whats worse and improve on that just barely enough, to be able to say we've made an improvment.

For example, Nike didnt move operations oversees because it wanted to improve the way of living in the countries its occupying. Its moved there to make as much money as posible by paying the people as little as it could get away with. Just cause the people would normally make 5 cents a day working elsewhere and Nike pays them 6 cents, doesnt make things better.

Captilism is great but only when it displays a moral conscience. So far it has exhibited little if any, of that. I just watched that Pfizer rep talking again, what a phony smile on this guys lips, it just gets my blood pressure going. lol

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

Currently, capitalism is the only viable option to breed success for any nation. However, corporate greed and monopolistic practices should never be tolerated and is against any capitlistic idea. We should always strive to improve and just trying to write of a totally negative aspect of our society (corporate greed) by saying "hey it could be worse" is counter productive. Big business is a problem that must be solved and not an issue that should ever be rationalized.
This is a forum for another website

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

BTW, the worst docu. I have seen on corporate greed was a frontline special on credit card companies. They (and thier employees) just a bit worse then the cig companies.....

 

[The Gardener]

For example, Nike didnt move operations oversees because it wanted to improve the way of living in the countries its occupying. Its moved there to make as much money as posible by paying the people as little as it could get away with. Just cause the people would normally make 5 cents a day working elsewhere and Nike pays them 6 cents, doesnt make things better.

Sure it does! Nike puts x number of workers to work making 6 cents an hour. Without the Nike plant, there would be x number of people unemployed making zero cents an hour.

Secondly, nobody is forcing these people to work for Nike. If the pay is that bad, and not feasible or worth it for them, then they wouldn't be signing up for jobs with Nike.

I mean, come on here... It's not like the Nike militia is rounding up people against their will and forcing them to work in chains and shackles at their plant. These people are willingly coming to the plant and willingly working. This would be an indication to me that these people might actually be thankful that the plant is there, and that they have a job. We are talking about people who would probably otherwise be subsistence farming.

 

[Johnny24601]

"Secondly, nobody is forcing these people to work for Nike. If the pay is that bad, and not feasible or worth it for them, then they wouldn't be signing up for jobs with Nike."
Are you outta your mind? These people are dead poor and live in a state of total fear. The reason why Nike can pay these rediculous salaries is because they know that the workers really have no choice but to accept what ever they are offered. Nike is taking advantage of the fact that thier poor econmic landscape. Setting up a productive farming operation to even feed a small family is not as easy as you would think. You are living in a white picket fence world..................

 

[rapidfrontal]

"Secondly, nobody is forcing these people to work for Nike. If the pay is that bad, and not feasible or worth it for them, then they wouldn't be signing up for jobs with Nike."
Are you outta your mind? These people are dead poor and live in a state of total fear. The reason why Nike can pay these rediculous salaries is because they know that the workers really have no choice but to accept what ever they are offered. Nike is taking advantage of the fact that thier poor econmic landscape. Setting up a productive farming operation to even feed a small family is not as easy as you would think. You are living in a white picket fence world..................

You are not looking at the big picture. The U.S. and its corporations are not the reason these people live in a state of total fear. Nike is taking advantage of market conditions to make a profit, and it's called Capitalism, a dirty word to many on this website. I'd like somebody to propose a better alternative than just shooting down the best yet because its not good enough.

Also, I have not seen this documentary, but I am very skeptical. How many movies have we seen in recent years that take the very same angle about the"evil corporations" that are simply politically motivated. Ever seen The Day After Tomorrow, or what about that TV movie the other night about Locusts. And if you're talking about documentarys, let's take a close look at Michael Moore's recent so-called documentary.

By the way, I hate to say this because you are all going to freak out, but out-sourcing of jobs is a good thing!

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

I am not missing anything, I just believe capitalism does not mean we need to sacrafice humanity. Someone or some entity must make a first step to change. America dealt with these same issues in the late 1800's and early 1900's as they were a blue collar society focusing on production and exporting of goods made by workers who were being paid an awful wage and having to deal with terrible work conditions. It took worker organization through unions to make a change because corporate leaders for years put the all might $$ ahead of human decency. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past then we are destined to repeat them.
Stop thinking locally and begin thinking globally. Just because someone lives in a country with a poor economy does not mean that they should be treated like an animal. I always thought Americans preached the ideal that "all men are created equal", I guess it should read "all American men are created equal".

 

[The Gardener]

"Secondly, nobody is forcing these people to work for Nike. If the pay is that bad, and not feasible or worth it for them, then they wouldn't be signing up for jobs with Nike."
Are you outta your mind? These people are dead poor and live in a state of total fear. The reason why Nike can pay these rediculous salaries is because they know that the workers really have no choice but to accept what ever they are offered. Nike is taking advantage of the fact that thier poor econmic landscape. Setting up a productive farming operation to even feed a small family is not as easy as you would think. You are living in a white picket fence world..................

So, you think a better alternative would be to not allow Nike to do business in these countries? Not provide any jobs? Not give these potential employees who would otherwise be unemployed and starving a shot at a salary?

In effect, you are calling for Western corporations to boycott employing third world workers. Oh, it is okay to sell them goods, and take their money, but for heaven's sake, don't let them participate in anything that they might possibly make a little money from.

 

[rapidfrontal]

Re: re:

Someone or some entity must make a first step to change. America dealt with these same issues in the late 1800's and early 1900's as they were a blue collar society focusing on production and exporting of goods made by workers who were being paid an awful wage and having to deal with terrible work conditions. It took worker organization through unions to make a change because corporate leaders for years put the all might $$ ahead of human decency. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past then we are destined to repeat them.

You are on to something here, but the way that this process occurred is that we gave capitalism time to work. It took a while, but capitalism got us to where we are now. Let's give it time to work in less fortunate areas of the world now. Don't kill it now.

Stop thinking locally and begin thinking globally.

Exactly, except that you are the one thinking locally, no offense. Global thinking is understanding that the capitalistic structure begins largely in the western countries and is slowly spreading out so that others benefit also. This is seen in American corporations going overseas to open factories and exporting jobs from America to other countries to their benefit.

Just because someone lives in a country with a poor economy does not mean that they should be treated like an animal. I always thought Americans preached the ideal that "all men are created equal", I guess it should read "all American men are created equal".

Ok, so let's make it so that Nike can't manufacture in other countries and in the process remove all possibility of less fortunate people being able to benefit from capitalism.[/quote]

 

[rapidfrontal]

Gardener, I always knew you were a genius, now I have proof.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

Manufacturing in less developed nations is not only the reality of our world but a must for capitalism to thrive. I never said that we must stop this practice only that we cannot make the same mistakes of the past.
Should we strive to improve the world by learning from our past or should we just say "our people went through absolute hell to develop as a nation, so you should to, that's capitalism so deal with it". These third world workers are putting in huge hours starting in their early teens, getting paid a wage that keeps them just above absolute starvation and working in awful conditions where death and injury are common place. Yet you just want write all this off as the reality of capitalism in a growing economy. Not very proactive in my mind. There are small steps and sacrafices that can be made to drastically change this situation.
Look this is all useless as human kind has always put $$ ahead of all else and that is exactly what this thread is all about. Fear and poverty has been the root of every world war and continues to be the root of todays's conflicts (the middle east, Korea, etc.) and until we change this, human beings will always be in conflict. Of course change is only possible if the strong (the western world) adjusts their economic and social policies because the weak (thrid world) are pathetic and incapable of standing up for themselves. People like you and gardener live a good life (i am sure) so why risk it. You all have never had to experince what it is like to be one of these third world workers or what it was like to be an American factory worker in the late 1800's, but I think your point of view would change if you did. BTW I am not saying the middle east and korea is justified in anyway they are mostly all sick bastards who are totally manipulated and ignorant, in my opinion of course.

 

[The Gardener]

Johnny, I agree with you 100% on the issue of working conditions, and working age. Western operations in developing nations should have working conditions on par with factories in the West.

As for humanity 'putting money ahead of everything', that is a personal choice. You can get a job where you clock in at 8, clock out at 9, or you can get a salaried job where overtime is expected. The salaried jobs pay more, but you have to give things up.

The global economy is a direct result of the choices we make as consumers. We want cheap clothes and big cars. Global industry has arranged itself accordingly to deliver. We complain about the nasty things corporations do, but the behavior of corporations, either good or bad, is ultimately rewarded at the cash register by US, meaning you and me.

 

[losin_it]

Re: re:

Manufacturing in less developed nations is not only the reality of our world but a must for capitalism to thrive. I never said that we must stop this practice only that we cannot make the same mistakes of the past.
Should we strive to improve the world by learning from our past or should we just say "our people went through absolute hell to develop as a nation, so you should to, that's capitalism so deal with it". These third world workers are putting in huge hours starting in their early teens, getting paid a wage that keeps them just above absolute starvation and working in awful conditions where death and injury are common place. Yet you just want write all this off as the reality of capitalism in a growing economy. Not very proactive in my mind. There are small steps and sacrafices that can be made to drastically change this situation.
Look this is all useless as human kind has always put $$ ahead of all else and that is exactly what this thread is all about. Fear and poverty has been the root of every world war and continues to be the root of todays's conflicts (the middle east, Korea, etc.) and until we change this, human beings will always be in conflict. Of course change is only possible if the strong (the western world) adjusts their economic and social policies because the weak (thrid world) are pathetic and incapable of standing up for themselves. People like you and gardener live a good life (i am sure) so why risk it. You all have never had to experince what it is like to be one of these third world workers or what it was like to be an American factory worker in the late 1800's, but I think your point of view would change if you did. BTW I am not saying the middle east and korea is justified in anyway they are mostly all sick bastards who are totally manipulated and ignorant, in my opinion of course.

Very well said.

I didnt mean the topic of this thread to be about the pros and cons of capitalism. I just wanted some of you guys to really think about what your putting into your bodies without just taking the word of the seller as gospel. Money (lots of it) can make even the best of us do some slimmy things, even go as far as keeping important information about a product from the consumer.

I would like to know why the goverment fined Merck in the first place? Can anybody offer some info to this? Thanks.