Are Corporations a Threat to Democracy?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I personally believe that they are not, for the sole reason that we have freedom of choice in purchasing their products or not. I'll expand on that as the debate continues. Nonetheless, I am interested to hear what others think on the issue.

[Major Robert Dump]

I believe that they are when unchecked. But they are also more efficient. Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.

And no, we don't always have a choice. Drug companies are a prime example, and military contractors are another. When you mix in the buddy system and corporate influence in campaigns and politics, it gets very ugly indeed.

[Beskar]

Yes they are.

Democracy is regulation of politics to make things fairer and more equal. Freer the market, more unchecked power. Democracy checks political power, to assist in preventing it isn't abused. Socialism would be an economical example of checking the economical power of corperations. This is to try to stop exploitation.

In democracy, are also responsible and accountable by the masses, in socialism, you are also responisble and accountable by the masses. Without that responsibility and accountablity, it gives rise to exploitation.

[Fragony]

No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

[Beskar]

I believe that they are when unchecked. But they are also more efficient. Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.

Oh, you are talking about collectivism? This is usually associated with communism, not free market where you have the 25 random small farms.

No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

I don't think responsibility and accountablity = absolute control. Absolute control would mean it is responsible to an absolute sole/dictator, and since Lefties don't like dictators and would put checks in place to prevent them (opposed to free-for-abuse politics such as the Free[for-abuse] Market).

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Acceptance of high regulation is used by unscrupulous companies in order to push regulations that benefit them economically. Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources, but often infringes on the right of people to conduct business as they would choose with others.

Yes they are.

Democracy is regulation of politics to make things fairer and more equal.

No, it's government determined by the people.

Oh, you are talking about collectivism? This is usually associated with communism, not free market where you have the 25 random small farms.

In America, the word corporate means just about the opposite of collectivism. Because the farm is run by a corporation that wants to make profits, not by people who want to give things to people according to their need.

You see, there's a big difference there, huh? Do you see the difference?

I want to explain this clearly, because it seems you think the size of a farm determines its socio-economic philosophy. But really, a big, corporate farm is more efficient than smaller farms due to economics of scale. Now, that's a complex phrase, so here's a link that explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Just click on that and read it and you'll see what I'm saying about large farms.

Now, in America we have many large, corporate farms. So the free market is not associated with "25 random small farms". MRD wrote about corporate farms, but you seemed to think he said the opposite thing. And by opposite I mean what you wrote about the free market was directly contrary to what MRD said, and the reality shows, the free market of farms is.

Also, MRD wrote that big corporate farms are more efficient than many smaller ones (economies of scales again!). You seemed to think that means collectivism is more efficient.

But that isn't right. Because of fundamental flaws in socialistic theory, collectivist farms in history have been less efficient - often much less so - than private farms of any size. So collectivism isn't efficient, but inefficient, which means more work for less food. Which is why the Soviet Union had to import grain.

CR

[Fragony]

I don't think responsibility and accountablity = absolute control. Absolute control would mean it is responsible to an absolute sole/dictator, and since Lefties don't like dictators and would put checks in place to prevent them (opposed to free-for-abuse politics such as the Free[for-abuse] Market).

It's utopian in nature, never going to stop going for that 100%, no matter who and what. Comes down to this, company's eat each other for their market-share, governments feed on everything

[seireikhaan]

Leaning nay. Some basic checks need to be in place so that we don't go back to late gilded ages. Obviously, like any large, expansive group of people, corporations can go wild. But I don't see them as terribly hard to contain with the right motivation, and after that ought to be left alone.

[jabarto]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Okay, so we're in agreement so far...

Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Wait, what? Without regulation corporations would reduce their workers to wage slavery. Or are you seriously insinuating that the corporations only have good intentions and would always act in good faith were it not for the big mean government always stepping in?

Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources,

That's funny, right?

Anyway, I think my answer to the question is obvious. They aren't a direct threat to democracy as long as they're reigned in by strict regulation.

[Meneldil]

When companies grow bigger and richer than some states, they indeed become a threat to democracy, the people and the economy as a whole.

Now, I'm kind of baffled by the liberal idea that companies are bad only if governement regulation steps in. As far as I know, back in the 19th -when western governements avoided any kind of regulation- workers were barely glorified slaves and consummers had no rights at all. All the wealth went in the hands of a few people, while the majority of the population worked 14 hours a day 7 days a week. And thinking about going on strike was enough to send you to jail or to get you shot at by the army. Awesome system, I say.
So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

You want unchecked and unregulated companies? Then read Dickens and Zola, or move to China, because that's what you want. Myself? I'll pass.

[rory_20_uk]

And no, we don't always have a choice. Drug companies are a prime example, and military contractors are another. When you mix in the buddy system and corporate influence in campaigns and politics, it gets very ugly indeed.

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

[Ironside]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Acceptance of high regulation is used by unscrupulous companies in order to push regulations that benefit them economically. Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources, but often infringes on the right of people to conduct business as they would choose with others.

CR

So these unscrupulous companies would be scrupulous if they didn't have a concentration of power to attemt to corrupt?
And only use fair means to get fair advantages against other companies and/or to make profit?

I'll ask one counter question:

Is democracy always more profitable than lack of democracy?

Personally, I would say that in some cases, yes. Particually if they get large and powerful and a big corperation is more efficient due to economics of scale...

[KukriKhan]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

I was about to vote "No; no threat", until I read rory's answer. That got me thinking. Looking at it as a matter of scale, corporation size : democracy unit (State or Country), I can see that a large corporation could have a delterious effect on a smallish State. For example, what if Microsoft's HQ and production facilities were in Malta, a country of only 400K citizens (120K voters)?

That might skew/unduly influence policy and voting patterns in Malta, always in favor Big Daddy.

So, I'll soften my vote to "Leaning No", to recognize that it depends on context; where a corporation is.

[Fisherking]

In the way they have been developed and allowed to be essentially immortal entities they are.

It is more the courts and laws surrounding them that has made the trouble but in a representative democracy they wield much too much political power and compete with individual liberties vs. corporate wellbeing.

Most of the representatives are as liable to be bought and sold now as they were in the 18th century.

I am certainly not anti business. I am just much more pro individual liberties...

[Husar]

Well, Intel almost got AMD off the market and almost established a monopoly that way but then the evil EU stepped in, sentenced them to a big fine and said these methods are forbidden and now the stores that Intel paid to only sell Intels before are slowly starting to offer computers with AMD CPUs.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Should the EU have let the market regulate itself and do free market economists agree that a monopoly is a good thing or could uncle Tom have stepped in and produced some CPUs in his garage to compete with Intel?

Then, in the times of pretty much unchecked markets you could also buy people there, it was only when governments forbid it that human trade went to the black markets of the evil sex industry and disappeared from it's place next to aunty Anna's fruits and vegetables stand, or did I misunderstand something here?

[CountArach]

They certainly aren't doing any good for African Democracy. Diamond trade anyone?

EDIT: In case it wasn't obvious, I don't like the fact that this thread is predicated on the idea that Democracy is a Western institution. 'Third World' Democracy is ignored here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When companies grow bigger and richer than some states, they indeed become a threat to democracy, the people and the economy as a whole.

Now, I'm kind of baffled by the liberal idea that companies are bad only if governement regulation steps in. As far as I know, back in the 19th -when western governements avoided any kind of regulation- workers were barely glorified slaves and consummers had no rights at all. All the wealth went in the hands of a few people, while the majority of the population worked 14 hours a day 7 days a week. And thinking about going on strike was enough to send you to jail or to get you shot at by the army. Awesome system, I say.
So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

You want unchecked and unregulated companies? Then read Dickens and Zola, or move to China, because that's what you want. Myself? I'll pass.

Humans are not ants. Society serves the individual. Corporations serve the economical well-being of individuals, not the other way round.


Edit: 'Are corporations a threat?' Well, both a threat and the means by which much of our economy is organised. I must give the boring answer: give me a strong, solid liberal democracy with a capitalist means of production. In practise, I want more regulation, more de-privatization. The welfare of society should be the goal, not the welfare of corporations. For that, move to China or the Congo indeed.

[Pannonian]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

Comparable to landowners and rotten boroughs. The smaller the borough and the fewer the landowners, the more rotten the borough. Until you have the example of Dunny-on-the-Wold.

[Fragony]

Diamond trade anyone?

Yeah who would do a thing like that

[Beskar]

You see, there's a big difference there, huh? Do you see the difference?

I want to explain this clearly, because it seems you think the size of a farm determines its socio-economic philosophy. But really, a big, corporate farm is more efficient than smaller farms due to economics of scale. Now, that's a complex phrase, so here's a link that explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Reply like that again and I am sticking you on ignore. I am not an idiot and I do know all about the economics of scale, this remarks was simply uncalled for.

Which is why the Soviet Union had to import grain.

It was because the farmers burned all their land and slaughtered their livestock so it never went into the hands of that government as they were sent to the gulags and the land was then worked by people who didn't have a single clue how to actually farm.



On another point, I agree with comments from the following members as these are examples of how it is a big threat or sprouted opinions which say they are:
CountAnarch
Louis VI the Fat
Husar
Fisherking
rory_20_uk
Meneldil
jabarto

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wait, what? Without regulation corporations would reduce their workers to wage slavery.

Really? Why? It's not the most profitable approach. There seems to be an unfounded fear that without strict regulation we'll return to the worst excesses of the late 1800s.

Reply like that again and I am sticking you on ignore. I am not an idiot and I do know all about the economics of scale, this remarks was simply uncalled for.

Sorry, I meant no offense, I just saw this remark;

Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.

Oh, you are talking about collectivism?

So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

I said high regulation. A few simple rules (not polluting, etc.) are good.

CR

[Strike For The South]

It's a catch-22. Corporations usually do a much better job than the goverenment and as was mentioned early in the thread big ones can fianance products that would otherwise be unfianancable.

Now of course they sink there greedy paws into goverenment but that's been going on for centuries.

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?

That option is in the Monastery, in the thread 'The world before neo-liberalism'.

[jabarto]

Really? Why? It's not the most profitable approach. There seems to be an unfounded fear that without strict regulation we'll return to the worst excesses of the late 1800s.

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?

A few simple rules (not polluting, etc.) are good.

CR

Maybe I gave you too little credit before. You're leagues above most libertarians if you're willing to admit that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

[Idaho]

A corporation is going to do everything legal, and will push the boundaries of the law, in order to get more money. This effect is amplified the larger it gets. A massive corporation has no other reason to exist but to make more money. And that money is used to directly challenge or reinforce decisions that make the corporation richer or poorer. The larger corporation often has so many offshoots in so many different markets that it has no overall 'trade' or 'industry sector'. It simply deals in the business of business. Money. And when money gets big enough that a small change in the law here, tax percentage there, or foreign policy decision elsewhere makes billions of dollars difference to the corporation's profits - that corporation will take measure to influence that decision.

Corporate interests control the political campaign's of politicians and the access to those politicians - the democratic value of a citizen's vote is hence greatly diminished.

[Ironside]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

First: That's Fordism, the capitalistic counter to socialism (yes I agree that the middle class and the western world is built on that idea).

Second: That's not true for the induvidal company. They profit from low wages if the ones with high wages are plentyful enough compared to your own employees. Otherwise we wouldn't have production export to low salary countries. And it's certainly not a fundamental idea amongst prominent supporters of capitalism. Why would they otherwise fight against minimun salaries? Or proposing a general salary decrease as a whole or for large speciffic groups?

[Jolt]

No, it's government determined by the people.

No. Democracy is both. It was created by the people who were for centuries oppressed under an immobile social pyramid with little or no chance for social mobility. It was because of this plight that democracies appeared exactly with the intention that Beskar described them to be. Otherwise, why would all democratic constitutions uphold the idea equity and fairness. To prevent abuses the powers are separated, and each power is checked by the other ones.

No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

I find it funny that you and other people here saying "Politicians want absolute power, and it is because of that, that we should never allow them to regulate things which don't need their regulation."
But what about Corporations themselves? How come Politicians are interested in absolute power, and yet, Corporations are not interested in gaining as much political and economical power as possible to do their own bidding and subject countries to their own interests? Are Corporations all that is missing in Politics? Should we allow Corporations to rule us since they do not care for absolute power? History has proven us time and again that Corporations thrive on ambition for as much power and profit as possible for themselves, leading to cartels, trusts and other assorted dealings which allow them to brush off competition and gain a full monopoly to subject entire societies and political powers to their own interests.

[Meneldil]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

That would be true, if:
- it weren't possible to export your goods to other places where people might be able to buy them
- corporations made plans based on the long-term.

As it is now, they are only driven by short term profit, and are willing to do anything to increase these profits. Even if it means destroying the system that gave birth to them.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Too big to fail = Too big to exist.