Are corporations "good" entities or "bad" entities?

It depends on the corporation. I think you’re purposely misunderstanding what you’re reading on Fluther… it’s not that corporations are evil, but that they have way too much influence on political matters, especially since the ruling that gave them status as ‘people’. What is in their best interests (profit) is not necessarily what is in the actual people’s best interests. Frequently, what they want comes at the expense of what we want.

Great question!! Anyone IMO that has any beef with a “corporation” it should be because of poor service or lousy products and nothing else. Corporations as a whole provide jobs…lots of jobs and do pay taxes and proportionally it is a very large sum overall.

Take my teeny weeny company…we are on target where we will have to pony up around $350,000 in corporate income taxes this year….add in payroll taxes already paid and we will be in the range of a half million dollars. Divide that out amongst 8 employees and each employee can raise their hand and say they contributed $62,500 each to support our government and that does not include 5 employees personal income tax liabilities or each employees capital gains tax. So how on earth could that be bad?

“Good” and “bad” are moral judgments. We consider people to be moral agents because they can be aware of the effects—harmful or beneficial—that their actions will have on others, and are expected to take that into consideration before acting. Computers aren’t considered moral agents because they just act according to instructions, regardless of whether this harms or helps.

Corporations are somewhere in the middle of this spectrum of moral agency. On the one hand, they are run by people, decisions are made by people, and so we would expect that these people are acting as moral agents. On the other hand, corporations exist for a specific purpose: “to maximize shareholder value”, in other words, to make money for the owners of the corporation. That, in a way, is the overiding motive of the corporation, kind of the algorithm that determines its actions. In that sense, it’s more like a computer that behaves in a programmatic, amoral way.

The problem is that the bigger a corporation becomes, the more likely it is to behave programmatically and amorally, because the individual sense of morality of those making corporate decisions gets diluted in the anonymity of the organization. People can hide behind the entity of the corporation, and that leads to an altered sense of responsibility.

This was a particular concern of Theodore Roosevelt. He once said, “I regard this contest as one to determine who shall rule this free country—the people through their governmental agents, or a few ruthless and domineering men whose wealth makes them peculiarly formidable because they hide behind the breastworks of corporate organization.”

Both. They provide jobs, goods and services, revenue, etc.. But they can do harm to people at the same time. Consider how many small towns Wal-Mart ruined, or the working conditions for their Chinese employees. Think about the working conditions for third world labor. I know not all third and second world labor conditions are bad, but many are and the corporation won’t necessarily ensure it’s supplier is ethical.

Monsanto has done some very bad things to the agricultural world by running local farmers out of business. Big powerful corporations seem OK if you work for/with them, but you’re fucked if you’re up against them.

If a business can dump waste products into a small lake, or pay to have it properly disposed of, it will dump it into the lake since it’s cheaper. So we have gov’t to correct for these behaviors.

Corporations with heavy political influence can be a terrible thing too.

Don’t think I’m anti-business though. I get the usefulness of corporations. I work for one. Human nature can frequently lead to unethical behavior given enough power, and it’s really these violations that I and many others object to. If every leader of a corporation took their newfound role as a more influential societal leader more seriously, there might be less of these ethical violations.

Both. Maximizing profits for themselves and shareholders, no problem. But some of the things they do to maximize profits, big problem.

Corporations are formed to make money, profit to be specific, for a limited number of people who own shares.

Everything they do is done to that end.

That end does not always meet the needs of society as a whole.

@augustlan I’m glad I asked the question. A corporation has always been a “legal person” in the eyes of the law. It has a different tax ID number from the person who owns it. It pays taxes separately from the taxes paid by the owner. That does not make it a moral entity, and confusion of a moral entity with a legal entity, with moral attributes attributed to the legal entity is what I’m hearing on Fluther…..even on this thread. Not from you, however. Thanks for the comment.

@marinelife Thanks for the comment. May I reword it for accuracy?

Groups of people form themselves together to produce a product or service that can be sold for money. To make money (to make a living) it must meet a need and serve a good purpose for those who buy it. Otherwise, they would not buy it. And most certainly everything is done to the end of producing a product or service that people will buy.

Now where is it written that @Cruiser in his business, or me in my business are required or expected to “meet the needs of society as a whole”?

@plethora If corporations indeed always did “meet a need and serve a good purpose for those who buy it.” that would be great.

Many of the people who make up corporations are unscrupulous and greedy. They cut corners, bribe regulators, use shoddy materials and anything else they can get away with in the name of profit.

@marinelife Note in my comment above, I did not mention corporations. Those were people trying to earn a living by producing goods and services that serve others.

Many of the people who make up humanity are unscrupulous and greedy. They cut corners, bribe regulators, use shoddy materials and anything else they can get away with in the name of money and/or power. There are plenty of people who do it in every walk of life. And that includes most assuredly the US Govt.

Neither the US Gov’t or any group of people in business (whether organized as a corporation, an LLC or any other form of organization) should be expected to meet the needs of humanity as a whole”. If you are under that delusion, I would suggest you get yourself organized, get some money, and get the hell out there and “meet all the needs of humanity”.

@plethora Never did I say that corporations shuld meet the needs of society as a whole. I simply said that their motivation: making a profit sometimes conflicts with the needs of society as a whole.

Neither the US Gov’t or any group of people in business (whether organized as a corporation, an LLC or any other form of organization) should be expected to meet the needs of humanity as a whole”.

If they are given lots of power by our system, then they should or we should change the system so they can’t. Note I’m not saying everyone in any business should become Gandhi, but if you find yourself in a position of commanding great power and influence, yeah, you’d better also have society’s best interests at heart.

@cockswain Right on!

@marinelife That end does not always meet the needs of society as a whole.

@cockswain you’d better also have society’s best interests at heart

I can surely buy the latter. There is a big diff between meeting the needs of society and having society’s best interests at heart. When my children were small I met all their needs. Now that they are grown I meet none of their needs, but I always have their best interests at heart in all I do, including in the example I set. I would have the same expectations of anyone in a position of power, whether government or the private sector.

Gee, the three of us sound like we’re in the Ron Paul camp don’t we.

Corporations are neither good nor bad. A Corporation is a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild. They simply provide a goods and service to the consumer to make a profit. Merchants and traders are people, so I don’t quite see why corporations shouldn’t be considered as people?

There also can never be such a thing as a Corporation being harmful because when a trade is made between the consumer and the Corporation, it’s done voluntarily (no one has a gun to your head when the trade takes place).

Now even if you ignore the most important point >voluntarily trade< , regulations arise after an individual “harmful” case is used as an excuse for generalizations. In other words, as an example, there was one Corporation that defrauded you, or sold you poison, so instead of judging this case individually in a court room, or simply boycotting it, or spreading the truth through words of mouth, a general regulation is created to punish every innocent Corporation that never behaved in such matters. The regulations especially punish the taxpayer who pays to upkeep these regulations. The rationale seems to be that one bad apple ruins it for everybody. Someone gets killed with a gun, and then all guns should be outlawed.

Furthermore, the silly part is that these regulations haven’t been working for decades, and they’re almost always captured by the lobbyists. So now the regulators are working for the Corporations they should be regulating. If people were to finally wise up one day, they would realize that the solution to this problem is not to keep making new and “stronger” regulations, but rather stop all the regulations, because if and when that happens, then there will never be anything to lobby about. It will also return the power back to the consumer who sets the market prices and who is in charge of punishing Corporations if and when they supposedly do something harmful (as mentioned above) either through a court system, or boycotting, or spreading the truth through word of mouth, but at least it’s done on an individual bases and not at the taxpayers expense.

More regulations will simply mean more regulations will be captured and work for the Corporations instead of against them. Money is one of, if not the most power influence.
Likewise, all of the government, if the government has little power, then they cannot be captured with money. No more lobbying.

For example, if you look at ebay, or google shopping, you will notice tons of reviews. If you happen to see a company or user with 1 star vs a company with 5 star, who are you going to buy from? The negative feedback from the consumers destroys the business.

On a rational level, if a Corporations sole purpose is to maximize profit, then why would they want to create products that harm the consumer? That would be counterproductive. They need the consumer healthy and wealthy enough to continue to buy the product or service. So they must would set a price that the consumer can afford and is willing to buy, otherwise they go out of business. Likewise, the corporation must pay a salary good enough to keep someone working, and high enough to allow people to continue to buy their product.

Since we still have plenty of Corporations in good shape, that means there are enough employees and consumers who’re satisfied with working and making a good enough salary to purchase the Corporations product or service, and since the consumers continue to purchase the product or service, that means the corporation is behaving in a well manner, by not defrauding nor selling poison to piss off the consumer.

The general trend I noticed is that it’s usually the poor, the sick, or those that are unsuccessful in capitalism who advocate for social welfare programs, socialism, or Keynesian economics. It’s also extremely funny to watch these people complain about how evil and harmful corporations are, and how they should share their wealth or be taxed a lot more, but at the same time these people go and purchase a new computer, internet access, medicine, oil, gas, ipads, iphones, etc… from the very corporations they’re against.

Well I’ll be dipped in shit. I agreed with @plethora . Maybe there’s hope for us all.

@cockswain We’re mellowing…...maybe…:)

@woken ”...go and purchase a new computer, internet access, medicine, oil, gas, ipads, iphones, etc… from the very corporations they’re against.”

Well, what other options do they have? Especially for medicine?

If one doesn’t have an option, then why would one spit on the hand that feeds him/her?

Shouldn’t one be grateful instead?

@woken “On a rational level, if a Corporations sole purpose is to maximize profit, then why would they want to create products that harm the consumer? That would be counterproductive. They need the consumer healthy and wealthy enough to continue to buy the product or service.”

Boy, are you naive.

“the Coca-Cola company has come under scrutiny once again for selling harmful products – this time, with high levels of benzene, a cancer causing chemical. The company’s products are being investigated all across the world, including the US, UK, China and Australia. ” 2006 Source

“Over 3,000 victims have been recognized as having “Minamata
Disease”. It has taken some of these people over thirty years to
receive compensation for this inconceivable event. In 1993, nearly
forty years later, the Japanese courts were still resolving
suitable compensation for the victims. Many people have lost their
lives, suffered from physical deformities, or have had to live with
the physical and emotional pain of “Minamata Disease”. This
suffering is all a result of the very wrongful and negligent acts
of the Chisso Corporation who dumped mercury into the sea water and
poisoned the people of Japan.” Source

“From the 1930s to 1970s Monsanto produced PCBs at its plant in western Anniston. The chemicals, now banned, have been linked to a range of health effects, from learning disorders to cancer.

The $700 million settlement would include $600 million in cash payments. Costs for cleanup, prescription drug and other programs would put the total past $700 million.

Of the $600 million cash settlement, Monsanto would pay $390 million within seven days of the court order while Solutia would pay $50 million over 10 years in equal annual installments. The remaining $160 million would be provided through Monsanto¹s, Solutia¹s and Pharmacia Corporation¹s commercial insurance, also within seven days of the court order.” Source

And the list of instances is endless. Regulation is the only thing that saves us from even more poisoning.

I don’t think you’re in a position to call me naive, because you just displayed it in your fullest.

Did you read your own sources?

It says in each source that it was the community and the individuals gathering together to sue or simply penalize the Corporations for their harmful practices.

Isn’t that what I said? The consumer punishes the Corporation? Legally, boycott, or word of mouth. In these cases, legally.

This also proves that regulations are all failures to catch and prevent the harm being caused by Corporations. It doesn’t say the regulators caught them. Do you know why? Because the regulators are working for the Corporations, hence lobbying.

So you’re right, there are endless amounts of regulations, but they’re are failures. Your argument is false.

I’ll give you another nice failed regulation. The housing bubble. How much people got screwed? Where were the regulators to catch or prevent it? Do you know how much this cost the tax payer? Do you know how much unnecessary harm was done to business’s?

Now, if you didn’t have these regulations, you would have saved billions of dollars in taxes, and each case would be judged individually as it was in your sources instead of these petty generalizations. Do you know how many innocent and well ran Corporations their are? Why would you punish them more because some Corporations were shady? I don’t see a lot of fairness there. I see a lot of discrimination.

Furthermore, each bank would have paid the price, by failing, instead of being bailed out with tax dollars.

I wrote all this in my first post, you didn’t bother reading it.

Oh Yeh, and if Coca-Cola is so bad,
Why are consumers still buying it?
Why are employees still working for it?
Why is it making record profits?

@marinelife I strongly agree that regulation is required for large powerful groups, whether they be corporate or governmental.

Think about it.

It has been frequently noted that many corporations exceed nation states in GDP. It has been less frequently noted that some also exceed them in population (employees). But it is odd that the comparison hasn’t been taken further. Since so many live in the state of the corporation, let us take the comparison seriously and ask the following question. What kind of states are giant corporations?

In comparing countries, after the easy observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations.

The corporation as a nation state has the following properties:

—Suffrage (the right to vote) does not exist except for property holders (“share holders”) and even there voting power is in proportion to property ownership.

—All executive power flows from a central committee. Female representation is almost unknown.

—There is no division of powers. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.

—Failure to submit to any order can result in instant exile.

—There is no freedom of speech. There is no right of association. Love is forbidden without state approval.

—The economy is centrally planned.

—There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.

—The society is heavily regulated and this regulation is enforced, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.

—There is almost no transparency and something like the FOIA is unimaginable.

—The state has one party. Opposition groups (unions) are banned, surveilled or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.

These large multinationals, despite having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms. Internally they mirror the most pernicious aspects of the 1960s Soviet. This is even more striking when the civilising laws of region the company operates in are weak (e.g West Papua or South Korea). There one can see the behavior of these new states clearly, unobscured by their surroundings.

If small business and non-profits are eliminated, when they become, as a bloc, wealthier and more powerful than the government in which they reside, then what’s left? A kind of federation of Communist states.

A United Soviet of America.