PDA

View Full Version : Regulation of business through law



Banquo's Ghost
04-30-2008, 12:45
We recently had a little discussion over employment law and whether business was served ill by interference from government. A contention was made that government regulation was a substantial annoyance and should sensibly be ignored.

Several of our more libertarian members have also proposed that business is perfectly capable and willing to regulate itself, because such behaviour would be good for business, and those who acted badly would invariably come unstuck.

To me, this shows a touching faith in humanity supported by as much evidence as backs up the tooth fairy. Certainly, within an already tightly regulated market governed by law, there can be examples of business voluntarily extending the boundaries of good practice. But all the evidence from unregulated markets demonstrates that business will do its damnedest to exploit the last cent of profit regardless the human cost.

I'd be interested in counter-opinion addressing these two topical instances:

Chinese slave children sold like cabbages (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1912205/Chinese-slave-children-%27sold-like-cabbages%27.html).

Chinese slave children 'sold like cabbages'

By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 2:07AM BST 30/04/2008

Thousands of children are being sold "like cabbages" to China's booming factories as virtual slave labour.

Young people – some aged under 10 – are said to have been discovered being bought and sold at a street market in Sichuan, one of rural China's most overpopulated provinces.

According to investigative reporters, the children stood in line as they were assessed like cattle, before being driven on trucks to factories in the Pearl River Delta, China's manufacturing heartland.

Southern Metropolis Daily, a newspaper based in the delta, suggests that abuses remain rampant in factories despite efforts by campaigners within China and abroad.

The abuses might have become worse as wages have finally begun to rise in recent years, prompting businesses to seek new ways to cut costs.

The newspaper was tipped off by residents living close to the street market. One local man, Mr Shao, said he had watched children being "sold like cabbages".

A reporter, posing as a clothing factory manager, was allowed to inspect would-be "employees" by patting their arms and stomachs. He agreed to pay them 3.5 yuan an hour – about 25p.

Many had fake papers saying they were over 18; but, when asked, most were between 13 and 15. One was just seven, another nine.

The newspaper said that many came from the same area of Sichuan – Liangshan county – where 76 children have been reported as missing since the Chinese new year in February.

One of the most disturbing findings was that local officials seemed to be complicit. A foreman, who produced officially stamped documents concerning the children, said: "We have the complete right to manage them, by any means. You only need to sign a work agreement with us."

The newspaper was told stories of hundreds of children being sent to electronics and toy factories across southern China.

Southern Metropolis Daily is part of the most adventurous newspaper group in China. Although run by the local government, it is encouraged to make money and breaks genuine stories to do so. Its staff have paid the price in the past, with a number being jailed on dubious bribery charges.

On this occasion, some of the allegations have been confirmed by the Xinhua news agency, the government's central mouthpiece.

In a similar case last year, hundreds of young men were found to be working as slave labour in a string of brick kilns across northern China. Lured with promises of high wages, they were locked up and, in some cases, beaten to death.

According to reports from Sichuan, some of the foremen in the latest case have now been arrested and efforts are being made to return children to their parents.

Bhopal: Hundreds of new victims are born each year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/india.pollution).

Bhopal: hundreds of new victims are born each year

· Children of victims suffer but have no health cover
· 23 years after disaster, site has still not been cleaned
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
The Guardian, Wednesday April 30 2008

Hundreds of children are still being born with birth defects as a result of the world's worst industrial disaster 23 years ago in the central Indian town of Bhopal, say campaigners. They are demanding that the Indian government provide immediate medical care and research the "hidden" health impacts.

More than two decades ago, white clouds of toxic gas escaped from American multinational Union Carbide's pesticide plant. The gas killed 5,000 people that night and 15,000 more in the following weeks - and doctors say that a new generation is being affected.

The true legacy of the disaster is only now coming to light. The Indian government stopped all research on the medical effects of the gas cloud 14 years ago, without explanation. Despite the country's supreme court ordering that the children of victims receive insurance, more than 100,000 remain without cover.

Satinath Sarangi of the Sambhavna Trust, which helps to rehabilitate victims, said that the Bhopal victims' penury and low social status meant few are prepared to help.

No one, he says, has taken responsibility for cleaning up the site and paying the high cost of medical bills.

"Because these people are poor or from a minority or lower caste no one seems to care. Their lives and their children are being sacrificed for the cause of industrial progress," Sarangi said.

Medical experts who had studied the effects of the gas on children born in communities affected by the gas cloud said there was now "no doubt of increased chance of the negative effects in children".

A 2003 study by the American Medical Association found that boys who were either exposed as toddlers to gases from the Bhopal pesticide plant or born to exposed parents were prone to "growth retardation".

Yesterday campaigners, who marched the 500 miles from Bhopal last month and vow to sit in protest in Delhi until the government acts, held a press conference to highlight a new fight for compensation for families whose children have been born with "congenital birth defects".

One of the mothers, Kesar Bhai, held her 12-year-old son Suraj in her arms. She had inhaled the noxious fumes in 1984 and was hospitalised but recovered. Her son, Suraj, was born brain damaged and cannot sit or talk.

"My husband is a labourer. We have no money to spend on our son. He cannot even eat on his own. I get free medical care for my breathing difficulties because I am a gas victim. My child does not get any help but he has been affected," she said.

Other children's growth had been stunted, said campaigners, because there has been still no clean-up of the Bhopal plant despite a promise from the prime minister in 2006. So far, less than 20% of the funds set aside to dismantle and make safe the plant have been spent.

The disused Union Carbide factory contains about 8,000 tonnes of carcinogenic chemicals which continue to leach out and contaminate water supplies used by 30,000 local people. The clean-up has been stalled by a mixture of bureaucratic indifference, legal actions and rows over corporate responsibility.

Dow Chemicals, which bought Union Carbide in 2001, says it is not responsible, arguing that because the plant is on government land it is up to the state to clean it up. However, the Indian government's chemicals and fertilisers ministry has said in court that Dow should pay 1 billion rupees, or £13m, to dismantle the factory and restore the fields.

Backstory

On December 2 1984, the sleeping citizens of Bhopal were enveloped by a lethal fog of poisonous gas spewing from a pesticide plant owned by American multinational Union Carbide. The gas was methyl isocyanate, which when inhaled produces an extremely acidic reaction attacking the internal organs, especially the lungs. This stops oxygen entering the blood, and victims drown in their own body fluids. The Indian government is still pursuing Warren Anderson, the former chief executive of Union Carbide, who keeps a low profile in retirement in New York and Florida. Union Carbide paid a lump sum of $470m in an out-of-court settlement with the Indian government in 1989. When the money was distributed among 570,000 people in 2005, most recipients got little more than £600. Dow, one of the world's largest chemical companies, purchased Union Carbide in 2001. Campaigners then covered its Mumbai offices with red paint, saying it was the "blood of Bhopal". Dow says it never owned or operated the Bhopal plant and it has no responsibility for the events in 1984.

Why should American and European employees be spared the benefits of unregulated markets?

HoreTore
04-30-2008, 13:12
Yes, slavery is bad for business, so the government shouldn't regulate something that will disappear on its own.

/sarcasm

Anyway, most of these "government regulations" are the negotiated deals between employer unions and worker unions.

LittleGrizzly
04-30-2008, 13:27
Business cannot be allowed to run without regulation, smaller business not so much but multinational coorperations value the dollar above all else, health and safety costs money that could be much more effective in the hands of the board of directors.....

Vladimir
04-30-2008, 14:54
Business cannot be allowed to run without regulation, smaller business not so much but multinational coorperations value the dollar above all else, health and safety costs money that could be much more effective in the hands of the board of directors.....

:inquisitive: Another stereotype. The "almighty dollar" is valued more by small business than large, secure corporations. It's far more precious when there are fewer of them.

The problem with too much government influence is the involvement of a largely ignorant population who pressures it into correcting perceived wrongs.

LittleGrizzly
04-30-2008, 15:20
Another stereotype. The "almighty dollar" is valued more by small business than large, secure corporations. It's far more precious when there are fewer of them.


I did say not so much (as in it happens but to a lesser extent), i was referring to very small businesses like to guy down the road from me who owns 4 corner shops, he needs regulation less than a mutlinational coorperation because there is just less he can do. (of course he needs regulation against selling out of date goods ect.)

drone
04-30-2008, 15:35
Regulation is a necessary evil. Corporations can not be trusted to "do the right thing", nor should this be expected, their duty is to the shareholders. I consider myself a libertarian, but I'm not sure their principles should apply to companies, as I am also firmly against corporate personhood. To expect businesses to behave is just naive. The latest housing loan fiasco here in the states demonstrates this nicely.

Over-regulation is damaging as well, especially in a global economy. It's a fine line, I guess.

Papewaio
04-30-2008, 22:30
If a corporation can be considered as a person in legal terms, maybe it is about time it also should have the same ethics and social dues that a human citizen does.

I'm a little bit bored with the 'shareholder first' scenario. A good corporation should be like a good citizen. Sure you can go out and earn an income, but you should be contributing to society not bringing it down.

What really annoys me is when governments make deals with large corporations to increase infrastructure for the private enterprise by funneling/cutting/destroying the public infrastructure for them making the private enterprise attractive by destroying the public competition. The primary example I can think of in Sydney is the addition of toll roads. The private companies pay the government of the day a substantial fee to get the right to build the toll roads... great increase infrastructure and user pays. The problem is the government then halves all the competing public roads and funnels traffic into the private roads. This isn't increasing overall infrastructure, it is increasing congestion and it is creating a monopoly aided by the government.

PS. And CEO's and the Board found to willfully and knowingly use slaves should be executed and then the bill sent to their families.

Lord Winter
05-01-2008, 05:57
We tried no regulations eairler in the late 1800's with Laize Faire (SP probably) but all it led to was horriable working conditions and wages. It wasn't until the dawn of progresivism when government actually started curtailing practices such as child labor and dangerous working condtions that bessnessius took up something that resembled responsiablity. Yes I know their was privite philanphatry but in the end that really didn't do anything to adress the problems caused by socity. While to much regulation can stiffle a bessnessius, none will not give it any reason to have morals.

HoreTore
05-01-2008, 09:47
:inquisitive: Another stereotype. The "almighty dollar" is valued more by small business than large, secure corporations. It's far more precious when there are fewer of them.

Not true. The small companies almost always offer better wages than the big ones. The reason? Well, the small guy wouldn't get many employees if he didn't offer more... Also, his administrative costs are around 0.

macsen rufus
05-01-2008, 12:54
Whenever I hear "corporate self-regulation", I always word-associate straight to "Enron", don't know why :clown:

Xiahou
05-01-2008, 16:03
Most government regulations on business just set up winners and losers. Most often the winners are the big businesses that have to political clout to get regulations that are beneficial to them. The losers are usually the small-businesses and innovators that are crushed by these regulations. Here (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2006/09/27/big_business_loves_government), I googled up an article that discusses the notion at more length.

Government in general, and business regulations in specific should only be about ensuring equal opportunity- not equal outcome. There is a need for very basic regulation, but that's where it should end. By basic, I mean enforcing the most basic, modest environmental/health standards, enforcing contracts and agreements, ect.

The situation the US seems to be in now is that the cure for everything that goes wrong is more government oversight and regulation. An accounting scandal? More government oversight. People bought houses they couldn't afford and lenders lent to people they knew couldn't pay? More government oversight. :no:

drone
05-01-2008, 17:52
The situation the US seems to be in now is that the cure for everything that goes wrong is more government oversight and regulation. An accounting scandal? More government oversight. People bought houses they couldn't afford and lenders lent to people they knew couldn't pay? More government oversight. :no:
Like many issues, the problem is not with the existing laws/regulations, it's the enforcement. For many industry regulations, the problems start when the regulators become too close to the industry, or are beholden to the industry they are supposed to control. Keeping that line clean is a must for proper regulation.

SwordsMaster
05-02-2008, 01:51
Would I want my nearest nuclear plant administred by capitalist economics without government intereference? Hell no! Would I want the prices of all basic items to grow as cartels and monopolies take over? Hell no! So I, for one, believe in the government's right and obligation to keep corporations on a short leash. I'm not saying central planned economy, but I'm sure as hell not saying it's free for all.

HoreTore
05-02-2008, 12:19
Would I want my nearest nuclear plant administred by capitalist economics without government intereference?

The all-new Enron Nuclear Power plant.

Sounds jolly, eh?

CountArach
05-02-2008, 12:21
Most government regulations on business just set up winners and losers. Most often the winners are the big businesses that have to political clout to get regulations that are beneficial to them. The losers are usually the small-businesses and innovators that are crushed by these regulations.
Exactly, so we need to crack down on political donations and lobying! I like your thinking Xiahou! :2thumbsup:

English assassin
05-03-2008, 13:26
Regulation of business through law certainly benefits MY business :clown:

Seriously though, to a large part, its a no brainer. How do you expect to have economic activity without regulation? Your promise is worth nothing to me, until it becomes a contract I can enforce. Anyone can steal your innovations, until they are protected by intellectual property rights. And so on.

A well developed legal system is a prerequisite for anything much above a subsistence economy.


I'm a little bit bored with the 'shareholder first' scenario. A good corporation should be like a good citizen. Sure you can go out and earn an income, but you should be contributing to society not bringing it down.


Thats why we have taxes. (Which, yes, I know, they try to avoid. So we need smarter taxes)

Papewaio
05-04-2008, 22:58
Thats why we have taxes. (Which, yes, I know, they try to avoid. So we need smarter taxes)

K.I.S.S...I think either less complex taxes or smarter tax officers... so given the probability of either I'd bet on less complex ones.