Reply With Quote
Yes.
I can choose to do business with any corporation, or not do business with any corporation. The corporation cannot execute me for making that decision.
A very simple question. I'm curious to see answers here - especially from libertarians.
In a free market, is action by multinational corporation preferable to government action? If yes, then why? If no then why not?
Yes.
I can choose to do business with any corporation, or not do business with any corporation. The corporation cannot execute me for making that decision.
Why not?
I'm sorry, a corporation cannot LEGALLY execute me for making that decision.
It's a very broad question, but I'd say yes, overall. At their base, businesses will do what it takes to make the most profit, while government agents rarely have to worry as much about that. Therefore, usually businesses can streamline better and respond quicker.
However, it's good to have limits on businesses, such as preventing collusion, price fixing, monopolies, etc etc.
So then what about laws that prevent the government from executing you? How do you feel about the government in that situation? Legalities have nothing to do with things. I believe what you're worried about is power and ability.
"action" is a pretty vague term, but if we're just speaking in generalities then I'll say yes. A corporation's survival depends on introducing efficiency and profitability into everything they do. There is never confusion about what a corporation's true motives are. And every individual consumer is empowered to choose to do business with or to choose not to do business with that corporation as opposed to dealing with government where everyone is forced to go along with whatever the government decides.
Before I respond any further, I want to point out this thread is not about corporations in general. It is about a specific type of corporation.
The government writes the laws. It makes all the difference in the world.
I've given you an answer. I fear the government much more than any corporation - and I question its motives (I always know what a corps motives are), and ultimately, the government trumps anything a multinational corp can do. Look at Venezuela. Don't assume this makes me some great champion of multinationals, but given the choice you gave me? A no brainer.
Do you have a specific type of action in mind that you'd like us to consider? Because if we're sticking with generalities a multinational corporation doesn't behave any different than any other corporation. The profit motive stays the same.
What kind of action?
in the long run, centralized political power ought to be eliminated and turned over to the local level .but presently i would advocate that we strengthen the federal government. the reason is that there happens to be large concentrations of private power that are as close to tyranny and as close to totalitarianism as anything humans (not just americans) have devised. i think even the founding fathers would have recognized this.
Last edited by rjv; 09-01-2009 at 02:31 PM.
Name them.
the framers or corporations?
Name the organizations/corporations/people represented in the following statement:
there happens to be large concentrations of private power that are as close to tyranny and as close to totalitarianism as anything humans (not just americans) have devised.
that's a funny question. like asking me to name one politician who was crooked or one shady lawyer but just for fun, i'll play along.
chevron, dow chemical, dole, general motors, enron, peanut corp of america, nike (although they are improving), AIG, cargill, constellation energy, GE, imperial sugar, phiilp morris....etc., etc.
If we had a free market, then absolutely, multinational is preferred over government. Problem is, the government makes overseas purchases preferable to local purchases, killing our economy.
More info please. What "action" are you talking about.
The problem, as I see it, is that CEOs can now make SO much money, in a short amount of time, that they don't really care if they screw over the company and everyone who has shares in it.
This also applies to politicians who promise and sign into law programs that will get them votes now, at the expense of future generations.
I don't care what the corporation type. The only regulations I want to increase are market share type. I think they shouldn't be able to be more than maybe 20% of the market share except under extraordinary conditions. I want to see corporate taxation reduced to zero, and tax consumption. Not production.
not just votes, but in many cases, personal profit and gain.
Seriously?
Nike has
Wow.concentrations of private power that are as close to tyranny and as close to totalitarianism as anything humans (not just americans) have devised.
I bet their army has GREAT boots.
I don't own a pair of Nikes (wait, my son's football cleats are Nikes) - but his wrestling shoes are addidas; his daily kicks right now are Reebok, and he's got a pair of Tony Lamas he steps out in....my other boy wears "Heelies" most of the time, and my daughter pretty much has a wide collection from various sources (Payless, Sears, BonTon, etc....); I don't wear Nikes, neither does my wife....
I guess I'm to stupid to understand the control Nike has over my life.
I do like watching Tiger Woods play golf, does that count?
Is he the tyrant?
I don't smoke, either.
Sorry, got to go; got to send the old deposit to the Fed (~$34,000 to cover the last two weeks of August).
What were we talking about?
- 9/2004: In September 2004 Jobs With Justice and the United Steelworkers of America called on Nike at its annual meeting to end what the organizations contend is a systematic violation of workers' fundamental rights. The groups criticized Nike's ongoing devastation of Canadian workers and communities through plant closures and drastic downsizing. They also criticized Nike for its continued failure to police some of its Asian contractors' labor practices.
Nike acquired Bauer Nike Hockey, including three Canadian union-represented facilities, in 1995. The company announced in late 2003 that it will close two of these facilities and drastically downsize the third, a USWA represented facility in Quebec. By carrying out this restructuring, Nike will virtually eliminate union representation among its over twenty-four thousand employees around the globe. According to CSRWire, "The United Steelworkers of America has obtained information through international labor allies that Nike is outsourcing Bauer work previously done at these Canadian facilities to a Thai contractor that is forcing employees to work overtime, exposing workers to excess heat and violating local wage laws. Source: CSRWire
- 4/2004: The Par Garment factory in Thailand supplies Reebok, Nike, Asics and Fila. Since its founding the factory has had a notorious record regarding workers’ rights violations. In 2000 international pressure resulted in the compensation of 30 union members and leaders who had been fired. In 2003 Par Garment filed for bankruptcy and the owners relocated to two non-unionized factories. Union members pressured the brand companies to provide compensation and back pay for former workers and jobs for any workers willing to relocate. The dispute between Par Garment and its former workers is still unresolved. Source: Clean Clothes Campaign, March 2004
- 4/2004: In April 2004 four unions representing over three million workers in the US and Canada called on the United Nations to review Nike’s affiliation with the UN Global Compact because, according to the unions, Nike violates workers’ rights. The unions alledge that Nike has violated the Global Compact’s Principle Three, that businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. At issue is the company’s ongoing restructuring at a Bauer Nike Hockey subsidiary. In 1995, when Nike purchased Bauer, the hockey apparel and equipment producer employed over 1,100 union-represented workers at three facilities in Canada. Bauer Nike Hockey announced plans to shut two of the facilities and drastically downsize the third. Aside from Bauer Nike Hockey, none of Nike’s over 23 thousand employees are unionized. Source: CSR Newswire
- 4/2004: In the fall of 2003, citing compe ion, Nike closed two factories, downsized a third and laid off a total of 321 employees at its Bauer, NH operations. Source: The (Portland) Oregonian, April 16, 2004
- 3/2004: According to “Play Fair at the Olympics” a 2004 report by the Clean Clothes Campaign, a number of workers at an Indonesian factory producing for Fila, Asics, Puma, Nike and Adidas stated, “Pretty girls in the factory are always harassed by the male managers. The come onto the girls, call them into their offices, whisper in their ears, touch them at the waist, arms, neck, buttocks and breasts, bribe the girls with money and threats of losing their jobs to have sex with them.” Source: Clean Clothes Campaign, March 2004
- 5/2004: In May 2004, Global Exchange held a press conference at its Oregon Fair Trade store to announce "No Sweat Challenge" to Nike and unveil No Sweat Sneakers, a new line of guaranteed to have been manufactured 100% sweatshop free
- 3/2002: A scathing report issued by Oxfam Community Aid Abroad stated Indonesian Nike and Adidas workers are paid so little they are forced to separate from their children, but also said the company had taken "small steps forward" to improve conditions in Indonesian factories. Nike said it welcomed the findings in the report, en led "We are not Machines", but also criticized the agency saying the information in the report was based on 35 interviews with Nike workers in Indonesia. The company says it has hired an independent body which has talked with 4,000 Indonesian employees and Nike has addressed all issues of non-compliance found from those interviews. Among the allegations raised in this report:
- That workers have good reason to fear that if they join independent unions they may face dismissal, jail or physical assault.
- That although there has been some reduction the pressures on workers, they still work in dangerous conditions, and are still shouted at when they work too slowly. Workplace dangers include respiratory illness from inhaling toxic chemicals and finger loss in cutting machines.
- In Nike and Adidas' largest Indonesian supplier factory, women who want to claim legally mandated menstrual leave must suffer the humiliation of proving they are menstruating by pulling down their pants in front of female factory doctors.
- 2002: "On October 21, 2002, workers at the Bed and Bath Prestige Company, located in Prapadaeng, Thailand showed up to work and found the factory locked. They soon learned that the factory owners had vanished without any warning, and still owing them a total of US$400,000 (16 million baht) in back wages and compensation. The Bed and Bath factory supplies several major US brands including Nike, Reebok, adidas-Salomon and Levi Strauss & Co." full story
- 5/2001: Global Exchange issued a report, "Still Waiting For Nike To Do It" that illustrates Nike's failure to live up to the six areas of reform at its overseas factories promised by Nike CEO Philip Knight in a speech before the National Press Club in 1998. The reforms included: protecting workers who speak out about conditions; investigating worker complaints and installing independent and confidential monitoring procedures; providing decent wages; scheduling reasonable working hours; providing safe and healthy workplaces; and respecting workers' rights for freedom of association.
- According to the National Labor Committee, a previously suppressed report on a 2000-2001 investigation conducted by the El Salvadorian Government and USAid revealed sweatshop conditions in Nike's Hermosa Factory (among others). Paid just 29 cents for each $140 Nike NBA shirt they sew, workers, mostly women, are also subjected to mandatory pregnancy tests, obligatory overtime, seriously contaminated drinking water (bacteria levels 429 times greater than internationally permitted norms), and excessively high production quotas.
- The same USAID-funded investigation of the Chi Fung factory in El Salvadoran revealed that workers were forced into unpaid overtime until quota were met, female workers were forced to submit to pregnancy tests and unions were prohibited. The factory produced clothing for Nike, Puma and Adidas.
- Nike was the recipient of one of the National Labor Committee's First Annual Golden Grinch Awards, given to companies for outstanding sweatshop abuses and starvation wages. In a factory producing Nike apparel in the Dominican Republic, workers were given 6.6 minutes to sew one children's sweatshirt. Workers earned just $0.08 for each $22.99 Nike sweatshirt they had sewn, which amounts to 3/10ths of 1% of the garments' retail price.
- 2001: Global Alliance, a watchdog group for factory workers, released a report stating that "Indonesian workers making Nike clothes and shoes are being sexually and verbally abused, have limited access to health care and are forced to work overtime." Workers at all nine of the factories investigated reported physical, sexual, and verbal harassment and abuse. Nike responded by developing a remediation plan to solve these problems that the company described as "disturbing". (Note: A year later, Global Alliance performed a re-assessment of the offending Nike factories with mixed results. full report)
- In July 2001, Nike debuted a 12 minute video on http://www.nikebiz.com that allowed users to tour one of its factories in Vietnam. The company stated that the "virtual tour" was posted in an effort to make its labor practices more transparent to the public. Labor activists labeled it as a publicity stunt. Read more.
- 5/3/00: Nike's then-CEO Philip Knight canceled a $30 million gift to University of Oregon after the school joined the Worker Rights Consortium, an organization of students, universities and human rights groups which intends to monitor the factories in the developing world that produce college apparel. The University later withdrew from the Worker Rights Consortium. full story
Why do you guys need me to tell you what kind of actions? Why don't you just give your opinions on different kinds of actions?
IE:
In this situation I prefer X or Y because of Z and in this situation I prefer Y over Z because of X. The question was broad on purpose and I'm not sure why you all want to narrow it down. Talk about whatever actions you want to talk about.
Man - all the stuff you posted is really old news. Besides - so what? Nike still can't raise my taxes, take over my healthcare, or declare war. You don't like Nike's business practices, well then don't buy their products.
I don't like my tax burden - can I LEGALLY stop paying?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
