Why I Am Pro-Corporate

by: DaveJ

Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 16:00


This post originally appeared at Blog for OurFuture. It was written for the Making It In America project.

I am pro-corporate.  I'll go a step further with that and proclaim that I believe that there are no bad corporations, and that I haven't seen any corporations do anything wrong.

I see the way you are looking at me.  I'd better explain.  

The reason I say there are no "bad" corporations is because corporations are not sentient beings that can "do" things or that can be good or bad.  They can't make decisions.  Corporations are just a bundle of contracts that allow groups of people to more easily raise capital and amass resources. Corporations are things, like chairs, and things do not make decisions, any more than a chair does.  Corporations are tools and tools are neither good nor bad.  

When I say I am pro-corporate, this is what I mean:  The things that the corporate legal structure enables people to do are good for society.  This is why We, the People decided to enact the laws that created corporations.  If we want to be able to accomplish things on a large scale, like build a railroad or airports and airplanes or skyscrapers - or solar power plants to replace coal power plants - we want to enable people to more easily raise the necessary capital and amass the resources needed to get the job done.  The legal structure of the corporate form of a business accomplishes this.

DaveJ :: Why I Am Pro-Corporate
Corporations, a bundle of contracts, don't "do" anything, people do. And that is why this discussion is important right now.  We are looking here at how to restructure our economy, but before we can do that, we have to correctly identify what went wrong.  We have to understand who the good and bad actors were.  

So what are some of the things that companies have been doing that we as progressives think should change?  Let's use the highly-publicized example of Wal-Mart and their low wages and benefits and Chinese imports.  Wal-Mart always complained about being cast as the bad-actor.  They said that if Wal-Mart raised wages and benefits and their competitor Target didn't, then they would be at a competitive disadvantage and Target would take over the business.  And, by extension, any company that tries to "do the right thing" is immediately at a disadvantage to a company that does not.

Looked at this way, if we make Wal-Mart raise wages and Target doesn't, then not only is Wal-Mart in trouble as a company but now we're starting all over again trying to get Target to raise wages.  And if THEY do so, then along comes K-Mart or Costco or a new company X-Co to pay the low wages, charge lower prices and take away the business.  This feels like it is going around in a circle, trying to fix a problem in one place and the pressures of the system immediately make the problem appear somewhere else.  

I think blaming companies for the things they "do" also places a lot of stress on people inside of them who might agree with us, and even can alienate them from otherwise supporting progressives.  People in the corporate world often feel trapped because the rules of the game require them to engage in what we think of as bad behavior.  These are good people who would be very helpful to us in making the correct changes but they feel forced by the system to do the things they do.  They are pulled two ways.  Executives at Wal-Mart on the one hand can be want to raise wages, and on the other hand have a responsibility to compete with Target.

So what am I getting at here?  The companies are not the problem,  the rules we set up for them are.  Companies operate on a playing field on which the rules of the game are supposed to be decided by US.  We, the People are supposed to set up the ground rules and then the companies are supposed to follow those rules.  Wal-Mart followed those rules.  If we didn't like the wages and benefits that companies pay, why don't we change the rules and tell them they all have to pay higher wages and provide better benefits?

Now we're getting somewhere.  Many progressives have been trying to get companies to "behave" in better ways, and haven't been getting much done -- I think due to not correctly identifying the problem.  The real problem is that we haven't set up the rules of the playing field to require these companies - all of them - to provide good wages and benefits, etc.  It is our job to regulate what these corporations do.  So why didn't we, through our government, change the rules for all the companies, so they all had a level playing field and clear rules?   Identifying why we have not fixed the rules is the path to fixing the larger problem.

What has been happening is that a few people in the bigger companies have been using the resources of those big corporations to influence our system and set the rules of that playing field to give an edge to their companies.  They do this so they can personally gain.    

This is where we need to focus to fix the corporate system.  There should be no way for people in companies to have any say whatsoever in how the playing field on which they operate is set up.  How to accomplish this is a subject for future posts.

As I said above, corporations are just a tool, like a hammer.  But a hammer can do a lot of damage if a person hits you upside the head with it. That is what we have to stop: a few people using corporate resources and hitting us upside the head.

Oh, and for the record, I am pro-chair, too, though my wife will probably insist I am a pro-couch partisan.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Shop at walmart now (0.00 / 0)
Does this mean that I get to shop at Walmart without having to turn in my progressive decoder ring first?

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

Yep (0.00 / 0)
Looked at this way, if we make Wal-Mart raise wages and Target doesn't, then not only is Wal-Mart in trouble as a company but now we're starting all over again trying to get Target to raise wages.  And if THEY do so, then along comes K-Mart or Costco or a new company X-Co to pay the low wages, charge lower prices and take away the business.  This feels like it is going around in a circle, trying to fix a problem in one place and the pressures of the system immediately make the problem appear somewhere else.

Exactly.  Conservatives and business people like to say most CEOs and corporate types are good people trying to do the right thing.  Politically, the correct answer is to agree with that assessment.

The problem is the marketplace doesn't allow them to do the right thing.  Any decent person running a business wants to see (say) a higher minimum wage because this allows him to pay his employees more without the disadvantage of helping his competition.  The same is true for environmental regulation and on and on and on.

We need to help the good business guys win by passing progressive laws and regulating corporations more.


Exactly (0.00 / 0)
You have an obligation to maximize gain for your company as long as you do so within the structure of law and regulation.

When we get people saying they are bad people for doing that, it places them in a bind.

It helps guide businesses and the people in them to pass the toughest laws and regulations that we possibly can.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Not so sure (4.00 / 1)
I wasnt sure what this post would be about given last week's piece on the economy and the need to change the paradigm. I even included part of what you wrote in my piece looking at real examples of economic recovery. I have a slight disagreement with you on corporations not making decisions, because that's just not right. By nature, corporations are shells that allow individuals (shareholders) to make decisions without those individuals needing to be liable necessarily for such decisions and/or debts.

I wanted to ask one question, because what you are proposing has actually been done before, and I take it from your article that you are a proponent of more regulation and oversight into the way we do business. Didnt we already try to reign in corporate abuse and practices 70 years ago? Wasnt that a big part of the new deal?

Keynes and a bunch of folks have already tried to do this, ironically enough they knew enough about the nature of the beast they were wrestling with to know what ultimately their solutions (similar to what youre saying) werent going to work. Why? Because what's wrong isnt the lack of regulation or reigning in of corporate greed (a problem we probably both agree on), what's wrong is that the entire system and corporate structure has as its objective making profits.

Once there was a time when the govt. did good and used its contracts and influence as a big spender to set a "floor" in regards to wages/benefits for people that solicited government money.
Today, however, that would be too little - too late. I don't see how anything short of a dramatic shift in the relation to one another, relation to production/consumption, and relation to the earth can move us beyond the current crisis. Maybe that would be new "rules" as you say..... but I think its much more than that.  


Forgot Link (0.00 / 0)
To the article I mentioned. I need to say that I am explicitly opposed to the actions that corporations are taking to undermine people and communities across the world.

My piece looks at the Coup in Honduras, Recent Clash/Massacre in the Amazon, and fight for healthcare reform in the U.S. More specifically, how corporations and entrenched business interests ARE the problem.

http://www.workingamerica.org/...  


[ Parent ]
You talk as if this didn't ebb and flow (0.00 / 0)
but clearly, it has.  Had we not had the previous 30 years of deregulation, then much of the disaster of the past decade woudln't have happened.

There probably is no 'end line', no point at which we will say that corporate problems have been 'fixed'.  

but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do o.


[ Parent ]
for who? (0.00 / 0)
Even with a well regulated system, corporate capitalism has managed to screw people over consistently.

Sure, its ebbed and flowed, and all the while screwing those at the bottom of the chain as it has moved along. Obviously there is a constant change in who makes up that bottom part of society but the system overall has always followed that pattern.

I did not at all imply that we shouldnt be doing things. What I'm saying is that we can't act like history doesnt exist, and all of a sudden re-write history to act like corporations are just neutral "tools", because they are not. How many working-class people do you know who "own" a corporation? This leads me to wonder then, it corporations are tools as the author suggests, who exactly has wielded them and used them? By defending their existence we essentially are saying we agree with the system in place but that its only some of the "people" that are bad.

I disagree with that, its more than just people, its systemic and rotten, and it has to go.



[ Parent ]
I actually DO know a few working class people who own corporations (0.00 / 0)
Hell, Open Left is a corporation.  

And the DEGREE to which the people at the bottom get hurt by the system has varied enormously over the course of the past 100 years, and there is certainly a way that it can be minimized.  There is no reason to believe that the system can't be handled better than it was in the '50s and '60s.

Unless you are advocating a complete state-run economy, profits are a necessary part of a functioning enconomy.  The proper question is how to incorporate ethics into the system, and how to prevent certain segments of society from accumulating unstoppable power.  

Historically, empowering unions and government as counterweights to corporations, rather than wholly eliminating corporations, has proven to be the best solution.  It should at least be a starting point of this conversation.


[ Parent ]
maybe we have different starting points... (4.00 / 1)
So this is where we disagree, and I don't quite know we can come to agreement after all.

I don't care one iota about the degree at which it is happening, I go by the belief that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Call that idealistic, naive, what you will, but that's what I believe.

Maybe you can see the varying degrees, but as someone born into that bottom sphere it all looks the same to me. Sure, maybe it did impact the degree to which people in the U.S. felt it, but then again I don't just look at things through a lense that is just U.S. focused. (I'm not implying you are either)

I absolutely dont belief the system can or will be handled better. The ideas you are proposing were tried, were made to fail by the corporate elite, and in fact are so much harder to enforce now that we are in a global economy which wasnt at the same place in the 50's/60's as it exists today.

I am not promoting a state-run economy, nor saying that profits shouldnt be part of the equation. I'm saying they should be below a few other criteria including ecological impact and social good.

We apparently have very different starting points, but it was useful to hear and read your thinking. Thanks for engaging, its why I like this community. (even if its a corporation... which I didnt know)


[ Parent ]
neutral tools (0.00 / 0)
Good point. One could make the same argument about... oh, I don't know...  slavery. "Slavery is neither good nor bad. It can be used for good, like building pyramids or growing shitloads of cotton. It's just that some individual slave owners are bad. Some slave owners want to be kind to their slaves, but if they do, they can't compete with the other slave owners who beat their slaves to get them to work harder." DaveJ has bypassed any deep questioning of corporations at their institutional root.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
A corporation is like a chair? (4.00 / 2)
Really? It seems to me that a corporation isn't just a thing. It's a system made of up a whole lot of things -- and yes, people. But while things can be misused -- when the chair is hurled at my head -- systems can be set up in a really bad way regardless of the original intentions of the people who started the system in the first place. And the system can be working just fine -- just as it was intended -- while all sorts of people are getting screwed (something you're addressing I know). But I think that a fundamental flaw of the whole system of corporations is that they are designed to primarily benefit stock holders at the expense of others. For instance, corporations frequently take all sorts of actions that enrage workers and customers but please the stock market to no end. In other words, for WalMart to compete with Target isn't just a matter of keeping wages and prices low. It's more important to convince stockholders of the value of their shares. Maybe you intend to address this in subsequent diaries?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

It is up to us (4.00 / 1)
It is up to us to regulate how much "expense of others" is involved here.

The very first thing we can do to start getting a grip on externalization is to require corporations to just start tracking and reporting it.  Sort of like an "environmental impact report" we can start asking for "externalization impact reports" on things corps do.  That gives us the info with which to make decisions on how to regulate it.

I do intend to address this in future diaries here and at Blog for OurFuture.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
So how would that work with something like malaria? (4.00 / 1)
About 3 million people die (according to WHO) from this totally preventable disease every year, and most of them are children in Africa. The corporate incentive, driven by stockholder interests, to solve this problem is zilch because the people who die from the disease are poor. I can't for the life of me imagine how a corporate system would attempt to address this, regardless of regulation. Any regulatory activity requiring a corporate expenditure -- or environmental cost, if you will -- for preventing and treating malaria would immediately cause stockholders to divest their shares. Wouldn't it?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
Not on a level playing field (0.00 / 0)
On a level playing field all the companies have the same rules.  So the competitive environment is not changed by regulations.

But why is it a corporation's responsibility to solve the problem of malaria?  Maybe you mean that pharma companies have a responsibility to do research into finding drugs that work.  That is a different thing.  It is similar to companies not looking for antibiotics because they won't make enough as on botox or something.  

In this area we have also fallen down on regulating corporations.  The REASON we have pharma companies is to look for drugs that work against the diseases that plague us.  We need a regulatory environment that enforces this.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
If corporations can't "solve the problem of malaria" (0.00 / 0)
then what the f***k do we need them for? It's not a matter of doing "the research." The cure is known. It's a matter of corporations engaging in something that doesn't maximize profit, which would damage their share price. Here's another example:
"Melarsoprol is the only treatment currently available for second stage sleeping sickness. Developed in 1949, it is an arsenic derivative so toxic that it kills 5% percent of the patients who take it. Eflornithine, a far more effective medicine, was discontinued in 1995 because it was not considered profitable by its manufacturer. Production was restarted in 2001 after a cosmetic use for it was found-the elimination of facial hair. But it has yet to reach hospitals and clinics around the world to treat people with sleeping sickness."
Here's a link you really need to familiarize yourself with for understanding the limits to a corporate approach to saving people's lives.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
OK I see where you are coming from.  I am familiar with this.  And exactly right about them not engaging in something that doesn't maximize profit at the cost of lives.

But why not?  Where are the rules that say they should be engaging in this?  And what has happened that allowed those rules to not be there today?

We really need to rethink from scratch, why do we have corporations?  The idea is they are good for society.  But lately this legal device called corporations are not so good for society.  Because the rules that made them good for us were taken away.

But what is the answer?  Do we just ban corporations?  That's cutting off the nose to spite the face I think.   I think the answer lies in people getting back to understanding what they are supposed to be for, what regulation is supposed to be for, etc.  

There has been so much smoke thrown in our faces to distract us from the theft that has been occurring...  

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Glad to get you thinking (0.00 / 0)
Look forward to the rest of your diaries on this. And agree that we need to "rethink from scratch."

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
"rethink from scratch" (0.00 / 0)
How 'bout we start with: Corporations are not persons. They have no Constitutional rights. They have no guarantee of free speech. They have no right to lobby Congress. They have no right to bribe government officials by hiring them at 7 figure salaries after they are out of government. Seems simple enough. (I know, simple but not easy.)

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Off the top of my head (0.00 / 0)
Corporations could invent and develop the malaria medicine, and government could buy that medicine and give it to the people suffering from the disease.

Just a thought...


[ Parent ]
The only reason corporations care about the stock market (0.00 / 0)
Is because the people who run corporations own stocks and/or options in their corporations.

Just putting that out there.

[note: unless said corporation actually does deal directly with the stock market.  But that's obvious.]


[ Parent ]
Costco (4.00 / 1)
Costco's wages and benefits for rank and file employees are double what Wal-Mart pays.  Costco, otoh, pays its CEO and top executives modest salaries (by CRO standards) and does not have the Walton heirs scooping up the many millions.

Wal-Mart has a long estab;ished policy of paying just 1% of sales for store wages.  Store wages are so low that if its store employees worked for free customers would be unlikely to see any change in prices. Wal-Mart instructs its workers on how to collect government benefits while being employed by Wal-Mart because without the subsidies their workforce could not make it.

The LA Times had a long series about Wal-Mart maybe four or five years ago that revealed how poorly they paid, how the store policy encouraged and nearly mandated unpaid overtime (and a lot of it), Wal-Mart's campaign to get rid of workers making $9 or more an hour and much more.

Don't lump a good employer like Costco in there with the bad employers.  Want proof that Costco pays well?  Shop at the stores and notice that employees are not only pleasant but go out of their way to help customers.  The optical department alone is outstanding, stands by their product, and costs significantlky less than optical chains.

I shop at Costco but have no oither interest in the stores.  It is possible to have well paid employees with benefits and still have competitive prices.


wow (4.00 / 2)
"Pro-Corporate"?? And yes, I read your "reasons". I'm sorry, but I'm anti-corporate, and I'm not sure why any self proclaimed liberal or "progressive" would call themselves "pro-corporate".

If we didn't like the wages and benefits that companies pay, why don't we change the rules and tell them they all have to pay higher wages and provide better benefits?

Because "we" can't get a public option, "we" can't get employee free choice, so on and so forth! "We" can't just snap our fingers and get regulations in place and corporations back under "our" control.

I think blaming companies for the things they "do" also places a lot of stress on people inside of them who might agree with us, and even can alienate them from otherwise supporting progressives.

I strongly disagree. I think most corporate types are very much economic conservative/libertarians and wouldn't support changing the corporate structure.

Executives at Wal-Mart on the one hand can be want to raise wages, and on the other hand have a responsibility to compete with Target.

I highly doubt Walmart executives want to pay workers more. I believe that when Walmart, or any corporation donates to politicians or parties, it's to influence their behavoir and policies to protect the corporate status quo. Not to have the rules changed in "our" favor.

I understand what you're saying about corporations do what they're legally bound (and able) to do, but I disagree with a huge portion of what you wrote and just had to say something.

I vote Democratic, I think Independent


When one person acts badly it's an individual problem; (0.00 / 0)
When everyone acts badly it's a systemic problem--right?

I basically agree with everything in this diary.  Not so sure about not letting people in corporations "have any say whatsoever" in setting the playing field (does that mean nobody who works for a corporation can vote?  Nobody who works for a corporation can make a campaign donation?), but that's the difficult part I suppose.

For the record: IMO, the best way to get rid of undue corporate power over government is to get more people involved in politics.  Seriously--the only reason money has so much influence is that so many people vote entirely based on advertisements.  Any other solution has serious problems. :/


What I mean (4.00 / 1)
What I mean about not having any say is the use of corporate resources.  We set up a situation where these entities can amass significant resources, and where it is essential that there be a level playing field.  Resources of this magnitude can just swamp the voices of others.  The minute they leak into the decision-making process power like this can change everything -- as we have seen.  And of course the people controlling the resources will use this power to enrich themselves -- as we have seen.  They will use the power to tilt the playing field -- as we have seen.  And once tilted they are able to amass more resources and power, and use it to further tilt the playing field...

This is not what the corporate resrouces were meant to be used for.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
I see (0.00 / 0)
So maybe you prevent the corporation itself from donating money to political causes (because corporations aren't people), but you let the people who work for them (including the CEOs) donate as much as they want?

I can see myself supporting something like that.  Stepping back, it does seem strange that corporations can't vote, but they can give loads of money to politicians.


[ Parent ]
Corporations have too many rights (4.00 / 1)
My view is that our legal system endows corporations with too many of the rights originally reserved by the Constitution for individuals. Why, for example, should corporations have a first amendment right to free speech, or to petition the government for redress of grievances? The Constitution could easily be construed to give those rights only to individual citizens.
The first amendment does define the right to "peaceably assemble," but it does not guarantee that an assembled group (e.g., a corporation) should inherent any other rights that can be exercised independent of the rights of those individuals in the group. I strongly suspect that legislation limiting the first amendment to individuals would survive a challenge to its constitutionality, and if it did, such legislation could powerfully enable us to limit the ability of corporations to use their economic power to capture the government.

The courts were actually the ones (0.00 / 0)
Who first institued corporate personhood (link: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.or...  So I don't share your optimism that such legislation would survive a legal challenge...especially given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. :/

[ Parent ]
Yes, but precedent can be overturned by statute (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the court has treated corporations as persons, but it has also held that corporations are not citizens (in Paul v. Virginia). So the "personhood" of corporations is already limited; a statute that specified that degree personhood could supplant the court's precedent, and I would argue it would be much harder for the court to overturn such an explicit statute.

Of course, the effort to pass such a law would be so lengthy and difficult that the makeup of the court would likely change radically by the time it happened; a majority of seats will probably be held by our robot masters long before our congress could muster the political will to even consider this legislation. But I can dream, right?


[ Parent ]
Not if the precedent is linked to the Constitution (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately it's not like the Ledbetter case, where Justices are wrangling with interpretation of statute. Corporate personhood derives from an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the only thing Congress can do to change the Court's mind on it is pass a Constitutional amendment.

We're more likely to get a progressive Supreme Court before an amendment like that passes 2/3 of the states. (Really, our best shots at overturning it were the New Deal Court and the Warren Court - they both punted.)

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.


[ Parent ]
So a political solution is needed. (0.00 / 0)
Sustained public pressure will be necessary to make this policy change happen no matter what institutional mechanism (courts, statute, constitutional amendment) ends up enacting the change. But the issue does not have a very high public profile, because people don't see how much it lies at the heart of our political dysfunction.

How do we raise awareness about this issue? This is the kind of thing a network of interlocking communities like the netroots should be good at. "Corporations are not people" seems like a pretty good frame to me, although I'm certainly open to other suggestions. We would need to link that broad conceptual frame to specific instances where the idea of corporate personhood significantly harms the rest of us; that means pointing out the role corporate personhood plays in pollution, corruption, government waste, etc. Effective opposition would focus public discontent on that underlying problem, then provide opportunities for activism in support of litigation, regulation, and legislation (at not only federal, but state and local levels as well).

In many ways, I think this could be the big progressive political fight of the next twenty years, because it links progressivism and populism together. If we can elevate this issue and win on it, significant change in the structure or our society becomes possible. We don't have a whole lot of time, though; as the U.S. economy becomes smaller relative to the rest of the world, our leverage over corporate behavior dwindles.


[ Parent ]
That was a totally bullshit ruling. (0.00 / 0)
It was based on a flat out misstatement of a previous ruling. If that bullshit can't be overturned, nothing can.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
The people who set up the US economic system (4.00 / 1)
E.g. Hamilton, Morris, etc.--and with the full backing of Washington--were well aware of and rightly feared the dangers of an unregulated economy, and were all for proper regulations and oversight being put in place to assure that the public wouldn't be abused by powerful people and corporations, and that the economy itself would be liable to collapse by such abuse. And empirical evidence bears out the dangers of poor or insufficient regulation.

The deregulators haven't a leg to stand on. They are either dishonest or stupid. And neither should be allowed anywhere near a committee hearing.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox