20845. jerryel - March 4, 1999 - 9:30 PM PT
Corporate Outing
Now Larry Flynt wants to "out" corporate fat cats in addition to politicians. While his focus is on sexual behavior, his juxtaposition of the politically powerful with the economically powerful suggests some questions that seem to have been neglected by the popular media for many years. Recall Sinclair Lewis' "Babitt" and H.L. Mencken's poking fun at the what he called the "booboisie". In a more popular vein, the last time I remember any sustained funmaking at the expense of the businessman was on the Authur Godfrey show.
Questions:
1. Are there not, as Norman Mailer has stated, two governments--the one we call government and the corporate "government"?
2. In order to assist in maintaining its hold over the people and their representatives isn't it in the interest of the corporate world to make politicians look like the real boobs and crooks?
3. While we acknowledge the corruption of politicians and what they do to subvert campaign finance laws, isn't it the corporate world that
drives and sustains that corruption?
4. If the above questions are asserted as essentially factual, should we be surprised that the corporate owned or sustained media let the talking heads go after the politicos and that we rarely witness an equal attack on major business leaders?
20851. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 6:28 AM PT
I before E, except after C, and in weird words like "weird," is the way I was taught it.
Re Message #20845
While I like the idea of a Coprorate Thread, with regard to point # 3, the truth is the opposite. It is politics, not business, which drives corruption. It is the handing over to the state functions which should be or fomerly were in the marketplace that creates malfeasance. It is the replacement of civil society by political society that is the culprit. If excessive government were not there to pick favorites, make deals, erect arcane tax systems with loopholes unknown to anyone but lawyers and unavailable to anyone but large contributors, and to hand out countless goodies to ensure campaign contributions and cushy jobs to politicians after they leave office, there would be no corruption. Remember, after the first so-called campaign finance reform in the 70s, the return of incumbents to Congress rose from about 80 % to more than 95%, since the "reform" makes it more difficult for challengers to raise money; challengers do not have Congressional strings to pull, while Congressmembers do. There would never have been a Gene McCarthy in 1968 with the 70s campaign laws. His insurgency was funded by one man, Stewart Mott; today, that would be illegal. And some people want to make the system even worse with more "reform." Go figure.
20852. cllrdr - March 5, 1999 - 6:57 AM PT
Excellent point, jerryel. But with Corporate fatcats controlling so much of the media we have to thank our lucky stars for such fine, upstanding sleazebags as larry Flynt. I just hope he can stick it in a bit further than mere sexual whoop-de-do. Even so Flynt's a refreshing contrast to Digger Murdoch, and his army of media digettes -- especially those on Fox Cable News, the "New York Post," and "The Weekly Standard."
"Remove their heads and let them preach upon poles for trespass of their tongues" (C. Marlowe, "Edward II," Act One, Scene One)
20853. IrvingSnodgrass - March 5, 1999 - 7:23 AM PT
Do I sense a thread idea from these comments on Jerry's post? Can someone put it in a useable format?
20854. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
Civil Society Vs. Political Society?
Or would that just be another Free Market Food Fight, which we have a lot of?
20855. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT
RE: Message #20852
A pole figures prominently at the other end in that play, as you will all no doubt recall.
20856. CoralReef - March 5, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
"Corporate Influence", I suppose.
20857. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
"Political Influence," maybe?
20858. CoralReef - March 5, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
Well, your idea would essentially be a thread about regulation, which is far from the topic brought up in the post under discussion.
Nice try though.
20860. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT
I'd like to see a thread on any or all of the topics jerryel raised. We could talk about how currupt politics really is and why; the channels of influence; corporate influence on elections, the policy agenda, law making and rule making; institutional reforms; etc.
20861. Judithathome - March 5, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT
I would like a Corruption thread, also...right this minute, I'm listening to a discussion on the radio about a local politician who received kick-backs from a Taxi company seeking a contract with the city. This councilman is a revered black man who has done much for the community and already there are cries of "racial motivation" when clearly it is "personal greed" which has led the politician to this sorry state.
20862. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
CoralReef,
I don't understand how you could say it would be limited to regulation.
I do like the way Slackjaw describes a possible thread on the subject, though.
As for the original poster's comment on making fun of businessmen, I think the Arthur Godfrey type humor was replaced by making businessmen out to be the source of most of the world's evil, starting perhaps with JR in Dallas, though there were some thoughtful if unsympathetic looks at the corporate world in the movies in the 50s.
20863. CoralReef - March 5, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
Ronski:
I didn't see it as making fun of businesmen but giving a little slice of how companies exert influence. We all know that the government exerts some influence over corporations but that's hardly news and we can remove politicians if we want to. But if I don't like what GE is doing with their donations and influence peddling, I can't do much unless I'm maybe a major GE stockholder.
I had hoped the popularity of making govt. out to be the bad guy had declined with the debunking of supply side economics.
But yes, Slackjaw's take is a good one.
20864. Ronski - March 5, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
Coral,
Yes, that's fine with me. My point is that GE would have no reason to try to exert influence without politicians who sell influence. As for having power as a citizen to influence corporations, one does simply by not buying their product or patronizing a competitor. That effect of the market is diminished by the very influence which congressmembers peddle, however. If protected by government, businesses have less reason to act properly and to please consumers. They end up answering more to politicians than to the people.
Slackjaw states it well, however, when he says that we could use the thread to determine the extent of such influence and corruption; we could see if anyone, myself included, has exaggerated fears of the harm that is actually being done.
20865. jerryel - March 5, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
In re: 20845 and 20863--both by Ronski.
His message, in part: " But if I don't like what GE is doing with their donations and influence peddling, I can't do much unless I'm maybe a major stockholder."
Right on.But how do we get past this impass? And don't we need the assistance of government and laws to try to get past it? I don't think the market place alone can do it. Didn't they use to call economics "political-economy"?
20868. jerryel - March 5, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Re:20863 and 20865 Sorry, Ronski. The quote I attributed to you was CoralReef's in 20863.
20869. shaka1 - March 5, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
Yes, corporate welfare is rampant in the U.S.
This week the U.S. paid some lumber company one-half BILLION dollars for a GROVE OF TREES (about 470 acres) in northern California that no one will ever visit.
Surely this underscores the view that all policy is now being set by special interests, and common sense is kept out in the cold.
Granted, this ancient grove of beautiful trees is now in public ownership, but the lumber company owns all the land around it.
If the government officials had to pony up some of their own dollars to protect redwood trees, when there are millions available for hugging, would their perspective remain the same...
20870. cllrdr - March 5, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
If you've never hugged a tree -- and you obviously haven't shaka/bon/Tiernan -- you wouldn't understand. Such a beautiful experience. All that dark, textured bark caressing my bod as its leafy arms swayed in the breeze. "Take me Daddy!" I said, and the tree -- being, of course, in total control of the "encounter" -- replied with. . . silence. I collapsed in ecstasy. Ever-discrete, Kim Novak and James Stewart stepped gingerly over my prone form as they wended their way through the grove.
20871. shaka1 - March 5, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Cellar: LOL. Stop it! You make it sound so real.
20872. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
Message #20869
I don't understand--in your view, what special interest is the beneficiary of this particular piece of corporate welfare? The lumber company or the environmental lobby?
"If the government officials had to pony up some of their own dollars to protect redwood trees, when there are millions available for hugging, would their perspective remain the same..." So what? Environmental protection is a public good. The whole point is that left to private provision, too little is spent on it.
And, I should add, some of the people who work on environmental law & policy are giving up very lucrative career paths in other fields...I'd say they ARE ponying up some of their own resources.
20873. jerryel - March 5, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
Re: Corporate Outing
See the new Moneybox feature under Columns and Features on the Table of Contents page for material relevant to this discussion. But note the anonymity of those responsible for corporate decisions under the article on the steel mills. No "outing" here.
20874. cllrdr - March 5, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
Am I the only one who has become annoyed over the way "outing" has been stretched far beyond its original meaning?
Then again, it was coined by a "Time" magazine scribe, so what the hell!
20875. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:46 PM PT
I presume the irony in that comment coming from a gay man is intentional.
20876. shaka1 - March 5, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Slackjaw: In this instance, it's Pacific Lumber and its president, John Campbell, who have ripped off the country.
$500 million for 470 acres of redwood trees--while another 60,000 acres completely around the "crown jewel" of the Headwaters Forest will still be owned by PL.
Does that sound like a good deal to you? Let's wait to see how much more money we'll have to pay to get access to the forest.
1. IrvingSnodgrass - March 5, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
Here is the post from the Suggestions thread which led to the creation of this thread:
20845. jerryel - March 4, 1999 - 9:30 PM PT
Corporate Outing
Now Larry Flynt wants to "out" corporate fat cats in addition to politicians. While his focus is on sexual behavior, his juxtaposition of the politically powerful with the economically powerful suggests some questions that seem to have been neglected by the popular media for many years. Recall Sinclair Lewis' "Babitt" and H.L. Mencken's poking fun at the what he called the "booboisie". In a more popular vein, the last time I remember any sustained funmaking at the expense of the businessman was on the Arthur Godfrey show.
Questions:
1. Are there not, as Norman Mailer has stated, two governments--the one we call government and the corporate "government"?
2. In order to assist in maintaining its hold over the people and their representatives isn't it in the interest of the corporate world to make politicians look like the real boobs and crooks?
3. While we acknowledge the corruption of politicians and what they do to subvert campaign finance laws, isn't it the corporate world that drives and sustains that corruption?
4. If the above questions are asserted as essentially factual, should we be surprised that the corporate owned or sustained media let the talking heads go after the politicos and that we rarely witness an equal attack on major business leaders?
2. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 6:50 PM PT
Time Mag. has recently done a multi-part series on corporate welfare, which has fueled alot of the recent outrage. Some of the stories were truly horrendous - companies (apparently) getting a couple hundred thou for each $7-an-hour employee, etc.
However, if the replies from alot of the featured companies (which Time found fit to print in little boxes buried in its Letters pages) are true, then Time did a great disservice to its readers.
If these stories are indicative of the the general "flavor" of the issue being propagated in other news sources, then I think the sources for these stories need to be looked at just as closely as the companies they criticize.
3. thoughtful - March 5, 1999 - 6:56 PM PT
Boy, this thread really, really bothers me.
First, Flynt supposedly was "outing" republicans only for their hypocrisy -- pointing fingers at Clinton for things they had done themselves. This is a far cry from "outing" corporate leaders who have *no* power to prosecute anybody.
Second, I suppose you could make a case that monopolies have some power to have a "hold over" people, though one still has the option of walking away from the goods/services. For nonmonopoly firms, this is a really tough argument to make. With international competition growing as rapidly as it is, monopolies (ex MSFT) are getting harder and harder to find.
Third, corporations respond to rules on campaign finance, but they are not the ultimate creators. The greed in that relationship is clearly on the side of those receiving the money, not spending it.
Fourth, corporations represent the interests of their shareowners, who are also people. Over the last decade, this has been a lot more people than ever before.
4. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
jerryel:
"...the last time I remember any sustained funmaking at the expense of the businessman was on the Arthur Godfrey show."
Hollywood has gone waaayyyy past poking fun at the businessman. Just think of every techno-thriller, every trial show and movie - heck! - just about EVERY movie and TV drama made in the past two decades...who's the villian?
The evil, greedy businessman.
5. Greystoke - March 5, 1999 - 7:02 PM PT
joezan
"The evil, greedy businessman."
Are you claiming that there is no such thing?
6. shaka1 - March 5, 1999 - 7:07 PM PT
Greystoke: Why don't you add the word "Jew" into your "evil, greedy businessman" to Joe so that we really know where you stand?
7. Greystoke - March 5, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
shaka1
"Why don't you add the word "Jew" into your "evil, greedy businessman" to Joe so that we really know where you stand?"
What the hell are you talking about? Are you accusing me of anti-semitism or what?
8. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 7:19 PM PT
Greystoke:
If that's what you read into my post, then let me clear it up for you. No. Are you implying that all businessmen are bad?
But it is true - the businessman has taken the place of the black-hatted rustler, the guy with the funny accent who moves to the neighborhood, the mafioso-like thug, the black pimp, and the Arab terrorist, etc, as the generic bad guy in movies and on TV.
9. shaka1 - March 5, 1999 - 7:19 PM PT
Overkill.
Yesterday, I went, for the first time, to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and it was overwhelming.
In display after display, the Nazis in the early to mid 1930s called the Jews "evil, greedy businessmen."
I shouldn't have compared them to you. Out of bounds. I'm sorry.
10. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 7:25 PM PT
In Indispensible Enemies, Walter Karp makes the case that our adversarial two party system is really a Punch and Judy show put on by a collusive political oligarchy. The relationship between this oligarchy and the "mighty" corporate giants with all the money is depicted as more of a political extortion racket than corporate bribery, with the real power lying with the political oligarchy. Their power lies in the fact that they make the laws and that they are a relatively permanent body. Money flows to the favored by political fiat, by legislated advantage, and, ofcourse, from the favored back to the politician. But those with the power to bestow "favor" have the real power.
My father gave me an issue or two of that TIME series which I never read. I don't think I am going to get around to them. Should I?
11. Greystoke - March 5, 1999 - 7:25 PM PT
joezan
"Are you implying that all businessmen are bad?"
No, not all. But I think that there are enough bad businessmen that the Hollywood stereotype is not far off the mark.
I'm certainly not anti-business. I believe in the free enterprise system. But I am also aware that there are some businessmen who do all sorts of unethical and illegal things in pursuit if the almighty dollar.
12. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 7:35 PM PT
uzmakk:
Yes - it is very interesting reading. Nothing that you haven't heard before, but I think the unstated gist of the series is that, since NAFTA, American companies have this new tool to hold over the heads of local politicians..."You grant me these tax breaks, etc., or we'll just move down to Mexico", if you get my drift.
What was more revealing though, at least to me, was the letters which the execs of some of these companies wrote back. Their numbers seem at least as convincing as Time's. And, after reading them, I got the distinct impression that, while the Time reporters did not actually lie, they sure left alot out.
13. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 7:44 PM PT
Greystoke:
Yes - there are some ruthless, greedy businessmen out there. And, yes, the free market contributes to alot of the greed. I won't argue that.
But look at my post in the context in which it was written - as a reply to jerryel's original post, in which he implies that perhaps the "media" are focusing on the greed of the politician in order to take the heat off of the businessman. I say "not".
And, to tell the truth, do you honestly think David Letterman or Jay Leno would get a laugh out of a Warren Buffet joke, or an ADM joke, when there is so much material ripe for the picking in Washington?
14. Greystoke - March 5, 1999 - 7:52 PM PT
joezan
"And, to tell the truth, do you honestly think David Letterman or Jay Leno would get a laugh out of a Warren Buffet joke, or an ADM joke, when there is so much material ripe for the picking in Washington?"
No.
I thought you were implying that Hollywood had gone overboard in its portrayal of evil businessmen.
"But look at my post in the context in which it was written - as a reply to jerryel's original post, in which he implies that perhaps the "media" are focusing on the greed of the politician in order to take the heat off of the businessman. I say "not"."
If that's what you're saying then I agree with you.
15. joezan - March 5, 1999 - 8:13 PM PT
Greystoke:
Overboard? Noooo....at least, not intentionally. But the studios have become aware of the sensitivity of special interest groups who, justifiably, object to the stereotyping of their particular constituency as "bad guys". They had a "fix", for awhile, but the public has become too savvy to buy the premise of the multi-racial gang, a la Escape From New York, et al, or the German/Nordic terrorist group which kidnaps presidents, hi-jacks entire office buildings, etc.
So the new every(bad)man is the wealthy businessman. He's powerful, he's rich. Who knows what he's up to? His life and dealings are a mystery to most of the TV-watching, movie-going public. He's an easy target. But, more importantly, there is no Businessman's Anti-Defamation League to air his protests.
And, dammit, I feel sorry for him!
16. wonkers2 - March 5, 1999 - 8:53 PM PT
We shouldn't over-generalize about corporations. They do good and some commit incredibly antisocial acts. Most Americans spend a good part of their lives working for corporations which exercise a lot of power over their lives. Good corporations try to treat employees and the public fairly in accordance with the law and common decency. Others treat employees unfairly, contaminate the environment and cheat their customers. The creed at Goldman Sachs, according to one of its partners is "We're greedy, but long-term greedy." Government's job is to make the rules to keep corporations operating within reasonable bounds in the long-term interest of the public. This is a big, hard job which entails a lot of pulling and tugging and honest disagreement over what the public interest is. The results have been mixed, depending on whom you're talking to. A recent example of this process is the deal reached this week with Georgia Pacific to protect 10,000? acres of priceless virgin redwoods. Not perfect but a step in the right direction.
In most respects (not all, e.g. health care and dealing with poverty), no other approach has matched the results of our democratic free enterprise system with all its warts and blemishes. Global warming, health care, urban decay, land mines and plenty of other problems remain.
Campaign finance reform would help keep the system in balance. Also, control of the media, especially television, is becoming overly concentrated in the hands of people like GE and Rupert Murdoch whose interest in the bottom line is short term greedy, in my opinion. The Congress should take a look at whether the country's interest is well served by allowing such mega concentrations of the media whose independence is so vital to democracy. [Hope this doesn't sound like a bunch of pious bullshit!]
17. cllrdr - March 5, 1999 - 9:36 PM PT
Corporate Outing?
Frankly I'm against Outing. If a Corporation happens to be gay and wants to keep that very, very personal fact to itself we should leave it alone. I'm opposed, however to Special Rights for gay corporations, and don't think they should be allowed to marry corporations of the same gender. And adoption is also a no-no.
Besides, I really couldn't care less about what gay corporations do in bed. As long as they don't flaunt it, or try to convert underage corporations into the gay corporate lifestyle, it's pefectly alright with me. Merge and let merge, I say.
18. jerryel - March 6, 1999 - 6:03 AM PT
Is this relevant to the discussion?\
"We have witnessed in modern business the submergence of the individual within the organisation, and yet the increase to an extraordinary degree of the power of the individual, of the individual who happens to control the organisation."--Woodrow Wilson: Speech at Chattanooga, Tenn.,Aug. 31,1910
Is this the basis for CEO's rewarding themselves with obscene salaries and perks?
19. uzmakk - March 6, 1999 - 6:18 AM PT
Door:
Have I ever congratulated you on your homosexuality. If not, my hearty congratulations. Really, its just wonderful. I'm so happy for you. I never tire of having the topic pop up no matter what is being discussed. Endless fascination. Really.
20. cllrdr - March 6, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
You're welcome.
21. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 8:59 AM PT
Greystoke
"No, not all. But I think that there are enough bad
businessmen that the Hollywood stereotype is not far off
the mark."
What percentage of business people must be bad in order to justify the stereotype?
22. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
wonkers2
"Also, control of the media, especially television,
is becoming overly concentrated in the hands of people
like GE and Rupert Murdoch whose interest in the
bottom line is short term greedy, in my opinion."
I thought much of your post made sense. But GE, short-term greedy? Not a chance. (I don't have an informed opinion on Murdoch at the moment.)
23. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Jerryel
Apt quote from 1910. And as we all know, the free enterprise system collapsed shortly thereafter, because of the CEO's narrow emphasis on personal perks.
24. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 9:23 AM PT
FreeToChoose
"What percentage of business people must be bad in order to justify the stereotype?"
16.66666666667 %, more or less.
25. wonkers2 - March 6, 1999 - 10:34 AM PT
GE is an admirable industrial company that has no business running NBC, MSNBC and CNBC all of which have been feasting on the Monica Lewinsky affair and similar stories (OJ,JonBenet)and everything else but news. I only have to assume the mess that they have made of NBC has been done with the approval/insistence of Neutron Jack Welch who is a very strong bottom line guy, short, long and medium term.
26. DanDillon - March 6, 1999 - 10:39 AM PT
The only contribution I'd like to make to this thread is the observation that "out," traditionally a measly adverb, preposition or adjective, somewhere along the way transmogrified into a full flegded verb. And both a transitive and intransitive at that. (Next thing you know, we'll have the outtransitive variety.)
27. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
Greystoke
FTC "What percentage of business people must be bad in
order to justify the stereotype?"
Grey" 16.66666666667 %, more or less."
Curious. I would argue that even a majority of people matching some attribute doesn't justify a stereotype, but analysis of that probably belongs in another thread.
However, I am quite sure that fewer than 1/6 of business people are as bad as portrayed in the Hollywood stereotype. My guess: 1% to 3 %.
BTW, if you ask how many are "greedy" I suspect the answer is higher. However, greed, as long as it doesn't transmogrify into unethical or illegal conduct is actually good for progress and the improvement of life for the masses.
My percentage guesses include people who break the law, or make unethical decisions in a way that has material negative impacts on others. And I think my numbers are conservative (i.e. high, rather than low)
28. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
wonkers2
Neutron Jack operates for the long-term. He may insist on short-term results, but not at the expense of short-term. (disclosure: I've worked for GE)
You may well not like the emphasis of his media network, but if the people want that type of coverage, why should he deny them?
29. wonkers2 - March 6, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
The next thing you know Welch would be buying the NY Times and turning it into a tabloid if the Sulzbergers would sell it to him. I just don't see what GE has to add to the news business. I used to work for GM and I remember well the phony NBC story on the GMC/Chevrolet pickup truck gas tanks. The NBC people who did the story hired a consultant to film a gas tank explosion for their expose. Apparently they couldn't get it to explode, so they rigged a remote controlled explosive, filmed the fake explosion, but NBC neglected to reveal their method to the viewers. Several heads rolled and Jack apologised to GM over it. But it makes one wonder about the journalistic standards of the new, bottom-line NBC. I also remember the GE "corporate pimping" scandal of the 50s and Lemuel T. Boulware, the GE VP who was the prototype for today's Sunday gasbags.
30. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
FreeToChoose
Let me tell you a little story that has affected my view of businessmen and lawyers. Yes, this is anecdotal and doesn't mean that all businessmen and their lawyers are unethical.
I own some land. An oil company owns the oil and gas rights. This oil company owns the oil and gas rights to several surrounding properties as well, and owns the surface rights to a property adjacent to mine.
The oil company drilled two gas wells on my property, as they have the right to do. The drillers dumped garbage on my property including several automobile tires that I had to haul away to the dump. They damaged some of my trees. They polluted my spring, killing numerous salamaders and other aquatic life. This was apparently a temporary situation, and there is no longer any sign of the pollution. The president of the oil company had promised to get the water quality of my spring tested before the drilling started, but he "forgot." So there was no way I could prove that the pollution of the spring was caused by the drilling.
The oil company frequently drives their bulldozers and other heavy equipment across my property in order to access their other oil and gas holdings on adjacent properties -- it is a shortcut for them. They have no right to do this, but who is going to stop them?
[continued]
31. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
The surface property that they own had no legal, right-of-way access. There is a road that crosses a corner of my property and leads to theirs, but I told them they could not use it without my permission. They sued me for $5,000 per day saying they had a right to use the road, and that I had blocked the road (completely untrue) and was denying them access to drill their property. The suit was baseless since there was no way for them to prove that the road had been used continuously in the past to access their property for the necessary period of time. (It had been used occasionly with the permission of the previous owner.) They just wanted to bully me into letting them use the road. They filed a concurrent suit saying their land was landlocked and asking the court to grant them a right-of-way across my property. (The two suits seemed contradictory to me.)
The oil company probably would have won the "landlocked" suit and the court would have dictated the terms, although I could have made the process time consuming and expensive for them. So, I settled out of court by signing a right-of-way agreement with the oil company. At that point I just wanted to make the legal headaches go away.
32. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
wonkers2
"I just don't see what GE has to add
to the news business."
Luckily, we don't have to get your permission before going into the news business.
"I used to work for GM and I
remember well the phony NBC story on the
GMC/Chevrolet pickup truck gas tanks."
I remember this very well. GM was a major client of mine, and I was intimately involved. It was a bad day for journalism. Jack didn't make the call, but he took the heat. (As he should have). As a result, I'm reasonably sure they have instituted new standards.
I also remember some of GE's scandals in the 50's. They also have cleaned up their act. Sending executives to jail tends to wake some of them up.
33. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
Greystoke
I assume you consulted with a lawyer, and he or she told you that if there was a pattern of use of your land for access, they did have a legal right to access. (I'm not a lawyer, and I'm dimly recalling my classes on law, but I do recall this situation, as it seemed unfair to me.)
I can understand why you would be unhappy with this situation. I would be royally pissed if it happened to me. But, as you admit, it doesn't mean that corporations or lawyers in general are evil. Instances of governments perpetrating harm are infinitely more egregious, yet I still believe there is a proper function for governments.
34. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
FreeToChoose
"I assume you consulted with a lawyer, and he or she told you that if there was a pattern of use of your land for access, they did have a legal right to access."
Yes, I consulted with a lawyer and he said the oil company didn't have a leg to stand on as far as prior use of the road was concerned. They could not prove continuous use of the road for the necessary period of time in order to have a "right-of-way by implication".
"But, as you admit, it doesn't mean that corporations or lawyers in general are evil. "
True. But I have also read enough news stories, and heard enough sob stories from others about the unethical behavior of businessmen to conclude that there are way too many who will stop at nothing in pursuit of bigger profits. It is my unsubstantiated opinion that the rate is far higher than the 1% to 3% of your estimate.
35. FreeToChoose - March 6, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Greystoke
"True. But I have also read enough news stories, and
heard enough sob stories from others about the unethical
behavior of businessmen to conclude that there are way
too many who will stop at nothing in pursuit of bigger
profits. It is my unsubstantiated opinion that the rate is far
higher than the 1% to 3% of your estimate."
How many stories have you read? Thousands? If you read one a day, and have been reading them for years, it could get into the thousands.
How many business people are there? For my estimate to be wrong (doing some really crude math), the number of business people would have to be less than a few hundred thousand. But there are literally tens of millions of people in business in the US, and far more outside the US.
I don't doubt that there are lot's of examples of unethical behavior that don't make it into print. But if you are going to reach conclusions based upon what you've heard, then you would need to document literally hundreds of thousands of stories to impugn my estimates.
36. CalGal - March 6, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Wait a minute.
You two are arguing over a statistic that FTC MADE UP?
Christ.
37. wonkers2 - March 6, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
FTC, Agreed on all counts. Except that NBC has become almost as bad as FOX.
38. wonkers2 - March 6, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
FTC, And GE didn't just "go into the news business." They gobbled up and are trashing what was formerly an independent news and entertainment company. It is not the same as if GE had started a media company, in my mind at least.
39. JaDeGoLd - March 6, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
Nothing could be as bad as FOX.
40. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 4:02 PM PT
CalGal
"You two are arguing over a statistic that FTC MADE UP?"
Yes. And the embarrassing part is I haven't been able to poke any holes in his theory.
41. JaDeGoLd - March 6, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Ahhh, FritoCheese is just picking his nits. It is literally impossible to accurately count the number of businesspeople out there and, by FritoCheese's own admission, most cases of business malfeasance go unreported.
The problem, as I see it, is that many businesses have blurred the lines between competitiveness and unethical behavior. Cutting ethical corners is no longer considered bad form; instead, it is rewarded as smart business practice.
42. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
FreeToChoose
Here is a site dedicated to corporate ethics.
Some excerpts:
"Another survey in 1990 focusing on business students brings little cheer either. In answer to the question "How ruthless are you prepared to be to get to the top of your chosen career?," 2% answered "extremely ruthless," 14% "very ruthless," and 39% "moderately ruthless." The same MBA students had a more than skeptical opinion of the moral state of the modern business world: 5% thought it had no morals at all, and 35% thought it had "very few" morals.
....................................................................
But evident problems emerge too when management circles themselves are asked directly: in 1977, Brenner and Molander published a study where 43% of the executives interviewed felt compelled to resort to practices they considered shady, but apparently found necessary for the survival of their companies and hence their own careers."
43. bottomfdr - March 6, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
Corporations don't have ethics, they have stock holders and stock holders don't care how or where the profits come from as long as they keep getting their checks.
44. alistairconnor - March 6, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
"... should we be surprised that the corporate owned or sustained media let the talking heads go after the politicos and that we rarely witness an equal attack on major business leaders?"
FTC and his fellow worshippers of Mammon would have us believe that media ownership is neutral with respect to the news that gets reported. Market research undoubtedly shows that the
media are giving the people what they want, and there are even specialised niche corporations known as "quality" media that provide a certain amount of actual news.
In any case, the importance of media ownership in determining what gets reported is probably overrated. More important is where the money is coming from.
Big corporations are big advertisers, therefore they get an extremely good press. No mystery there.
45. adrianne - March 6, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
(interruption)
AlistairConnor, I don't know where to reach you and I have a BABY to show you for gawd's sake! CONTACT ME!!
46. JJBiener - March 6, 1999 - 8:36 PM PT
Greystoke - "I think that there are enough bad businessmen that the Hollywood stereotype is not far off the mark."
I think that there are enough gay hairdressers that the Hollywood stereotype is not far off the mark.
47. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 8:39 PM PT
JJ
"I think that there are enough gay hairdressers that the Hollywood stereotype is not far off the mark."
Ummmm. OK. Are you expecting a reaction from me?
48. JJBiener - March 6, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
Greystoke - I don't need a reaction. I just thought you might realize how stupid your remark was if you saw put in perspective. I guess I was being overly optimistic.
49. CalGal - March 6, 1999 - 9:43 PM PT
My heavens, Grey. In *two* threads? What has possessed you?
50. cllrdr - March 6, 1999 - 10:17 PM PT
What did you think of "Shampoo," J.J. ?
51. Greystoke - March 6, 1999 - 10:35 PM PT
CalGal
"My heavens, Grey. In *two* threads? What has possessed you?"
The political thread just isn't the same since the Senate trial ended. Now I'm wandering aimlessly from thread to thread. Kind of sad, isn't it?
52. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
Jade Message #41:
"It is literally impossible to accurately count the number of businesspeople out there"
See here.
53. JadeGold - March 7, 1999 - 7:46 AM PT
Thanks, thoughtful. That was...well, you know.
I reiterate my claim that it is impossible to know the number of businesspeople out there.
54. cllrdr - March 7, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
Let's get all their names!
55. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
I'm not sure I understand all the dumping on GE/NBC, when the broadcast business has been among the most customer-satisfaction driven businesses going. Through daily, weekly and monthly ratings figures they have responded quickly (perhaps too quickly) to every nuance of viewership numbers. If a show isn't watched, it's pulled. Perhaps, if you don't like what's on, you should complain about the taste of the American populace.
Certainly, whatever power the networks have had over the decades, it's been significantly diminished as the number of channels available has skyrocketed. This is aptly demonstrated by the shrinking ratings of all the networks which continue to lose viewers to non-network stations.
56. cllrdr - March 7, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Waht price "customer satisfaction," thoughtful?
Would the customers be satisfied if they knew everything the corporations were up to? Clearly the corporations think not.
57. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 8:10 AM PT
May not be accurate to the last person, but close enough.
I am manager #6,221,093.
I am a corporate person, a business executive in a magerial position, and I am not corrupt, I don't break laws (well, except maybe speed limits), and I don't try to abuse power in any way to exploit the masses. I know of no one personally in my organization who does. I do know of people who have acted in less than ideal ways in their dealings with others, but no more or less so than in any other human interaction. For the most part, everyone I know is focused on satisfying their customers' needs. Since the masses are our customers, I don't see how this can be so evil.
In any human endeavor, there are costs and benefits, and those that benefit are not necessarily the same as those who bear the costs. (The one who farts may feel better, but the roommates may be less appreciative.) That's why we have governments and laws. But the benefits have far exceeded the costs.
58. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 8:14 AM PT
clldr, such as what.... what are they up to that the public doesn't know about? That they finance campaigns? Lobby Congress? Pollute? Arrange deals behind closed doors? Close plants and lay off people? That corporate governance pays itself handsomely?
59. cllrdr - March 7, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
Talk to be about how forthcoming the Tobacco companies were about their product.
Talk to me about "Product Safety" and how it's economically calibrated.
Talk to me about Union-busting.
60. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 8:29 AM PT
If you know about these activities, then they must be public, no? For example, cigarette packages were required to be labeled as dangerous to your health for over 30 years. The fact that smoking is bad for your health shouldn't be news to anyone, including the people who are choosing to start smoking today. I'm not arguing against government regulation. There is clearly a very important role for it. But there was and still is a very high demand for tobacco products by human beings around the world, and the tobacco companies do in fact meet their customers' desires.
61. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
Do you have a better way to calibrate product safety? The safest vehicles on the road today are school buses, but not many people want to drive big bright yellow vehicles with flashing lights on them that maybe go from 0 to 60 in 45 seconds.
Want to make a car safer? Look at what they do to stock cars: take the windows out, weld the doors shut, wrap drivers in fire-resistant suits and helmets. Not exactly the kind of car most people would be happy driving -- heck many still won't fasten their seat belts.
Corporations do respond to public demands. As safety issues arose over the years and the public became willing to put their money into safer vehicles, vehicle safety improved. These demands are also meshed with product liability laws that provide the economic incentive for corporations to avoid making products that cause significant injury.
62. FreeToChoose - March 7, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
alistairconnor
“FTC and his fellow worshippers of Mammon would have us believe that media ownership is neutral with respect to the news that gets reported.”
Nonsense. Please point me to a post where I said that, or even implied it.
“Market research undoubtedly shows that the
media are giving the people what they want, and there are even specialised niche corporations known as "quality" media that provide a certain amount of actual news.”
No kidding. And I won't even check, but I bet I said that.
“In any case, the importance of media ownership in determining what gets reported is probably overrated.”
Good job refuting your own thesis.
63. FreeToChoose - March 7, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
cllrdr
“Talk to be about how forthcoming the Tobacco companies were about their product.”
Show me the people who were duped into thinking tobacco was safe. I doubt that you can find any with a measurable IQ.
“Talk to me about "Product Safety" and how it's economically calibrated.”
Sounds reasonable to me. What would you propose? That we make product safety decisions based upon the entrails of animals?
“Talk to me about Union-busting.”
And you propose what? That corporations hurt by unions should sit on their hands?
64. cllrdr - March 7, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
"Show me the people who were duped into thinking tobacco was safe. I doubt that you can find any with a measurable IQ."
Please read "The Father of Spin : Edward L. Bernays & The Birth of Public Relations" by Larry Tye (Crown, 1998),then get back to me about the IQ factor.
65. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
Re union busting, do you suppose all union action is beneficial? Have you forgotten all the people stranded in the recent AA pilot action? To whose benefit was it? The passengers? The shareowners? The management? A handful of very well paid pilots?
66. footsie - March 7, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Thoughtfu; (#67),
You'll never survive!
67. footsie - March 7, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
Sory 'bout that --
Change to #57 instead of #67. And put the "l" in "Thoughtful".
68. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
footsie, thanks for your concern, but quite the opposite. I am a survivor, having over 20 years with the company and have been nicely compensated for my work. I am fortunate to be surrounded by very intelligent, well educated, highly motivated, successful people who work very hard to achieve all they accomplish. Not one of them even remotely fits the stereotype of an evil, blood-sucking corporate manager.
69. footsie - March 7, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
Thoughtful,
As much as I admire your approach, I'm pessimistic about the possibility of replicating your successes on the large scale.
70. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Corporations, like dope peddlers, create as well as meet their customers desires. Some of their products are good, others are harmless; still others are harmful. Some companies take advantage of lax campaign finance laws to get subsidies for their uneconomic or harmful products, eg ADM's ethanol and tobacco companies and farmers. The system is good, perhaps the best at the moment, but far from perfect.
71. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
footsie/thoughtful, I wonder how large thoughtful's company is. In my experience, the larger the corporation or government employer or other organization is the more likely it is that inevitable errors and injustices in the treatment of employees will be covered up rather than rectified in the absence of a third party. One function of unions is to provide a mechanism for review of these issues. Some do it better than others. The courts and other agencies also serve this function.
72. cllrdr - March 7, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
"Not one of them even remotely fits the stereotype of an evil, blood-sucking corporate manager."
Tricky, aren't they!
73. thoughtful - March 7, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
Footsie, I may be naive, but I don't understand why you should be afraid that my approach would work on a larger scale. Who are we talking about here? People, like you and me, who are out there trying to make a living every day. Just like most of the people who you pass on the streets every day, the vast majority are hard working and well intentioned. However, they generally don't make the news. The few who abuse their position and power or exploit people are the ones who do.
FYI, I work for a large corporation and have met many of the people in key leadership positions including many corporate officers. Certainly their goals are to add value for the shareowners, and try to keep the stock price up by meeting sales and earnings expectations. But they don't commit murder, poison each others' wells, or use their skills and talents to engage in illegal activities. Rather they use their efforts to lower costs, raise productivity and increase sales by providing better products and services than the competitors. They are aware of the pain that's caused by economic dislocations like plant closings and layoffs, but know that for the longer term success of the corporation, tough decisions must be made. They use outplacement services, options for retraining and generous severance packages to make the transition as easy as possible.
74. alistairconnor - March 7, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
Message #62 FreeToChoose : Seems you declined to respond to the last paragraph of my post. Down to your usual standard. I would expect no more from you.
Here it is again:
"More important is where the money is coming from.
Big corporations are big advertisers, therefore they get an extremely good press. No mystery there."
As long as the mainstream news media and the big corporations are pissing in each other's pockets (or if you prefer, have mutually beneficial business arrangements), then freedom of information is a pipe dream. Even if a minority of people have access to the facts on any particular matter, it is easy to write them off as loonies as long as the mainstream media don't carry the story.
[Sidebar: Adrianne, I shall be in touch.]
75. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 6:43 PM PT
alistairconnor, I will reply on FTC's behalf: You are perfectly correct. The real issue is what could or should be done about it. I'm not sure how to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath. Tonight I heard Alan Dershowitz attacking the cowardice and antisemitism of Rush Limbaugh and what's his name Grant and the racist chatter on Disney's ABC radio station in New York City. But in the next breath he said he defends their 1st Amendment right to say pretty much whatever they want. His only answers were for leaders to respond to their lies and for everyone to tune them out. He claims Limbaugh is spreading a miasma of hatred across the land, which is true in my opinion. But I'm not sure what to do about it. My feeling is akin to Bob Bennett's about Clinton's antics--where's the outrage? Limbaugh's program is the most listened to one in the country. Sad, but true.
76. alistairconnor - March 7, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
Wonk, with respect to the discussion in hand, your remarks about right-wing loonies are not actually relevant. Nobody is mistaking this sort of broadcasting for objective information. Everyone has the right to choose their own biased source of information. Ideally though, all bias should be explicit, and I fear that most people are not aware of the implicit pro-big business bias of the media they trust to inform them.
77. alistairconnor - March 7, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
But to pursue your digression, you people are really extremists when it comes to free speech... in most European countries, broadcasters making anti-semitic or racist remarks would be prosecuted and condemned.
78. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
alistairconnor, Perhaps, but the issue remains: What to do about it.
I proposed here in the FRAY consideration of a law that would keep the hands of the General Electrics of the country off of the TV and cable networks and newspapers, but nobody seems to agree. And I'm not sure in my own mind what the solution is. A related issue is the influence the defense industry has over the Department of Defense and our foreign policy. A couple of years ago we started an arms race among Chile, Argentina and Brazil by selling advanced jet fighters to Chile, as I recall. Our lame excuse was that if we didn't, France or somebody else would do so.
79. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
I'm sure that's true. We do have libel and slander laws and it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre. That's about it. As was discussed a Nazi in Lincoln, Nebraska, was supplying hate literature and other materials to skin heads in Germany and other countries in Europe. This was legal in Nebraska but not in Germany. Fortunately he was arrested on a German warrant when he foolishly went to Denmark.
80. JJBiener - March 7, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
Thoughtful - Thank you for trying to inject a little reality into this discussion. Unfortunately the "evil businessman" myth is too convenient to be easily dispelled. Businessmen, especially successful businessmen, are a group that do not engender much sympathy from the masses. As Americans we tend to favor the underdog in most fights. In any dispute between individuals and business, we tend to support the individual regardless of the merits of the case. Some liberals take this tendency to extremes.
As you pointed out, the reality of the situation is that most businesses are responsible and fair with both their employees and their customers. Unfortunately, they never make the news, and most people are so used to them, they exist unnoticed. It is only the small minority who abuse their power that make public notice. Then their are those who have a political axe to grind who go out of their way to promote their distorted point of view. They do everything in their power to turn public opinion against business. They then use this as an excuse to create a bigger, more powerful government to protect people from a threat that they have blown out of proportion. Reality is little use to them.
81. wonkers2 - March 7, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
JjBiener, Most businesses are fair to employees most of the time. They do make mistakes, however, and some aren't very good at correcting them. Your "reality" (and that of thoughtful)is a bit one-sided and sugar-coated, in my opinion.
82. JJBiener - March 7, 1999 - 9:59 PM PT
Wonkers - I tend to think the best of people until they give me a reason to do otherwise. If you see this as one-sided and sugar-coated, so be it. I don't believe in judging a group by the actions of some of its individuals. It disturbs me that so many liberals choose to.
83. wonkers2 - March 8, 1999 - 4:52 AM PT
JJ, I don't disagree. But you and thoughtful are judging the group based on her experience working in a utopian candy factory. All I'm saying is don't over-generalize that all companies are like that or that they are all like ADM or Big Tobacco, which, as I recall, thoughtful characterized as merely catering to people's desires to smoke. Indeed! Fortunately, the courts are beginning to see it differently. I believe perjury and obstruction have been mentioned once or twice at least. Where's your outrage?
84. nellminow - March 8, 1999 - 6:53 AM PT
#43 Bottomfdr
It's a little more complicated than that. Most individual shareholders, if asked, would say that they want other things in addition to -- or even instead of -- dividends and stock price increases, and that they object to corporate behavior like huge CEO pay and perk packages. But their ability to do anything about it is pretty limited. How many of those who hold the stocks in their own name and vote their own proxies (a small percentage to begin with) even slog through the proxies and think about how they want to vote on the very limited range of management-sponsored resolutions (election of directors, appointment of auditors, stock option plans) or shareholder-sponsored resolutions (proposing changes to increase the rights of shareholders to object to repricing of option plans, directors who are overcommitted, etc.)? Voting with their feet by selling the stock has no impact whatsoever on corporate behavior. The reality is that most shareholders own stock through insurance plans, pension plans, and mutual funds and don't have a clue what they hold. Most proxies are voted by brokers (who don't get paid anything for voting intelligently). Pension funds are supposed to consider proxy voting a "fiduciary responsibility" but it is hard to imagine the people voting the proxies for the GM pension fund voting against a management recommendation of another corporation. And it is even harder to imagine the people voting the proxies for the big money managers voting against management recommendations at the very companies where they are pitching for business. Anyone who is interested in much more information on these issues can check out our website at http://www.lens-inc.com where the full text of our book Power and Accountability is available. In that book, we say that corporations are designed to be externalizing machines the way that a shark is designed to be a killing machine -- no malevolence, no ability to consider consequences,
85. nellminow - March 8, 1999 - 6:54 AM PT
(Cont'd) As for the initial issue of outing corporations, I am all for making information available, especially about campaign contributions, charitable contributions, CEO and director pay, conflicts of interest, etc. For the record, I am currently running as a dissident candidate for the board of a company whose directors currently consist of the founder/CEO, an employee, the company's lawyer, the company's investment banker, and another guy. Information about that proxy contest is available on our website (http://www.lens-inc.com) as well.
86. ChristiPeters - March 8, 1999 - 8:41 AM PT
"all for making information available, especially aboutcampaign contributions, charitable contributions, CEO and director pay, conflicts of interest, etc."
I would add CEO and director pay in relation to workers pay:
CEO pay equals x times entry level pay
CEO pay equals y times mid-level pay
However, as a voting citizen, I find campaign contributions, conflicts of interest and lobbying activities to be very relevant information. Isn't this information all available, or am I being naive?
87. JJBiener - March 8, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
Wonkers - I am not making judgements based on thoughtful's experience, but on my own. I have spent nearly 20 years in Corporate America in a wide variety of companies and industries. I was not over-generalizing. I was accusing you of over-generalizing. I was saying that businesses and businessmen should be considered as individuals. I can tell you that of the ones I have had dealings with, the vast majority are responsible and ethical. The very few instances where I came across unethical behavior, it was driven by desperation to survive rather than greed. I am aware of the actions of the tobacco companies and ADM and others. I believe they should be held accountable for their actions and they should pay the penalty for their actions. I don't believe that other companies and individuals should be stigmatized as a result.
88. bubbaette - March 8, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
Ah, but JJ, you don't seem to have any qualms about tarring all "liberals" with the same brush. It's only when folks generalize about an entity you support that you take umbrage about over-generalization.
Businesses exist to make money. That's not necessarily at odds with being a good employer and a good member of the community. But when the businesses needs conflict with those of it's workers or community, being a good employer or neighbor take a back seat. That's where the incentives lie.
I've had some great bosses and have worked for some really good firms. But I've also spent an entire evening moving stacks of pallets away from fire extinguishers in time for an OSHA inspection and put them back in place the next night after the OSHA inspection.
89. wonkers2 - March 8, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT
JJ, As I suspected, we are basically in agreement. You and thoughtful were the ones who were over-generalizing, not wonkers, as you will see if you read my posts to this thread.
90. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
This NYTimes story provides an example of the U.S. drug and agriculture industries risking long-term public health for sort-term profits.
FDA revising guidelings on antibiotics for animals, NYTimes
/*
The types of antibiotics that would get special scrutiny are those that are also used by humans or are related to drugs used by humans. If the antibiotics are shown to foster bacterial resistance, they could be banned from use as growth promoters in animals. If scientists became aware of a problem with older antibiotics, they too could be banned.
The proposed guidelines have drawn criticism from both sides of a bitter debate that has been going on for three decades. At issue is the extensive use of antibiotics in livestock: of the 50 million pounds of antibiotics produced every year in the United States, about 40 percent is given to animals, mostly as feed additives to promote growth.
On one side, the drug and agriculture industries say the F.D.A. is going too far toward restricting access to antibiotics, which they insist are essential to produce safe and affordable meat and poultry. The industries also say the proposed rules will make drug development, already difficult and expensive, even more so.
At a meeting held by the F.D.A. in late January to discuss the proposed changes, Dr. Brendan Fox, president of Elanco Animal Health, a division of the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Co., said, "We believe the agency is greatly overstating the conclusiveness and the implications of the data and has put forth a seriously flawed proposal."
*/
91. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
/*
On the other side, public-health and consumer advocates, as well as some scientists, say the F.D.A. is not going far enough, because antibiotics are a precious medical resource that should not be squandered to fatten animals. On Tuesday, a coalition of 37 groups, led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group based in Washington, will petition the F.D.A. to separately rule that if a drug is used to treat diseases in people, it can no longer be given to animals as a growth promoter.
The agency's working proposal, or "framework," which is open for public comment until April 6, will not be translated into new regulations for about two years. But Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the center for veterinary medicine at the F.D.A., said the agency was acting now because the nation is in a vulnerable period, with no new classes of antibiotics expected to come onto the market for several years. That makes it all the more important to preserve the potency of existing drugs, he said.
*/
92. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
/*
The reason there are no new types of antibiotics in the pipeline is that during the 1980s there seemed to be more than enough, and drug companies stopped making new ones, Sundlof said. They have since resumed working on new antibiotics, but it can take 10 years to bring a new drug to market.
The last new class of antibiotics approved, fluoroquinolones, came into use in 1986. One of the most common brand names is Ciprofloxacin. They are the best treatment for certain infections, like gastrointestinal illness caused by salmonella bacteria. Sundlof said the agency was especially concerned about averting the development of widespread resistance to this class of antibiotics.
"Resistance has always been a problem in human medicine," Sundlof said. "The way we had avoided any catastrophic events was to continue to develop new products. But it became apparent in the 1990s that there weren't any new classes at the stage of development where they'd be approved and available in the near future, and there was great concern that if resistance developed to this last class of drugs, it could have very bad ramifications for the public."
The petition by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other groups will ask the United States to follow the lead of Europe, where antibiotics used to treat people cannot be given to animals to promote growth. They were given to livestock in the past, but the European Union banned the practice, on the recommendation of the World Health Organization.
*/
93. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
"The way we had avoided any catastrophic events was to continue to develop new products."
This quote especially makes my hair stand on end.
94. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Maybe some would see this as free enterprise at it's best, the drug industry creating its own increasingly strong demand.
95. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT
I got salmonella poisoning once. Has anyone else here been through that? I'll never forget it.
96. ChristiPeters - March 8, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
Azure -
I have experienced something my doctor called "food poisening".
It was awful.
I hope I *never* have to experience something like that again.
I was *very* sick for over a week and very weak for about three weeks following.
97. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
ChristiPeters -
Food poisoning can kill a person, or cause serious health problems due to side effects like liver and kidney damage. I believe every resonable effort should be made to prevent the spread of food borne illness, regardless of who's profit margin is impacted.
98. ChristiPeters - March 8, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
Azure -
I agree.
Besides writing forceful letters to the editor and my representatives in DC, I don't know what I, personally can do about it as a larger issue. I suppose, for my own family, I can be vary careful when I purchase and prepare food.
Do you have any other suggestions?
99. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
ChristiPeters -
There probably isn't much any of us can do individually other than to be more careful to avoid contamination since we can't depend on antibiotics to treat it, and to try to stimulate public debate on the issue in the hope that the decisions affecting our health and safety will not be made completely without our knowledge or consent.
100. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
One question that immediately grabs my attention is "Why is it illegal to use antibiotics being perscribed for humans on animals in Europe, but not in the United States? I thought Europeans were comfortable taking a lot more chances with their health than Americans are."
101. ChristiPeters - March 8, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Perhaps, Europeans are not more comfortable taking a lot more chances with their health than Americans are. Perhaps their fears, how they express them, and what actions they choose to take are merely different. I sure don't know.
(I also *hate* broad generalizations like that.)
102. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
I know that people go to Europe for medical procedures and medications that are prohibited in the U.S. for health and safety reasons. And I know there are other consumer products and foods available in Europe that don't make it over U.S. health and safety hurdles. So if using human's antibiotics on animals is too dangerous for Europeans, it's probably not very good for Americans, either.
103. thoughtful - March 8, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
And where do you two stand on food irradiation?
104. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 3:43 PM PT
So far, food irratiation sounds like a good idea. I don't think it leaves any residue other than cooked cooties, which I prefer to live cooties in my food.
105. thoughtful - March 8, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Of course we should presume if the Europeans ban it, it must be bad. After all, they have no capitalist tendencies, political motivations or desire to make money, right?
I'm not trying to paint a candyland picture here, but I am trying to bring a little balance into this discussion. Sure GE, ADM, etc. have made some mistakes and caused problems -- perhaps some intentional, perhaps not. But the benefits they've brought far outweigh the costs for the vast majority of people, be they customers, employees, or shareowners.
Let me suggest that you get up from your pc, walk to the refrigerator and grab a glass of something-- milk, OJ, soda, whatever. While you're enjoying it, think about the number of corporations you've just come in contact with and how you've benefited from their work.
106. thoughtful - March 8, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
Irradiation has been possible for years now. Why aren't they doing it?
107. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
thoughtful -
Actually, I thought health restrictions and regulations were generally looser in Europe than the U.S., so that something banned there must be a fairly serious hazard.
108. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 4:02 PM PT
thoughtful, I thought some foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables were being irradiated, and other more parishable foods will be when the technology is available. I don't know much about it.
109. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 4:05 PM PT
I hadn't realized there was a discussion of eating corpses going on in another thread. Aarf. I don't think I want to talk about food anymore.
110. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:05 PM PT
alistairconnor
“Seems you declined to respond to the last paragraph of my post. Down to your usual standard. I would expect no more from you.”
Sorry, I had no idea that I was required to respond to every one of your paragraphs. Where are these rules written.
I didn't respond to that sentence because I didn't think I had anything useful to say. But since you insist, here's my response: “ um, sounds OK by me.”
Happy?
Now, you accused me of holding a certain belief. Your statement was nonsense. Are you going to:
• Defend your accusation
• Retract your accusation or
• Ignore it and try to change the subject yet again
111. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
What was that movie where a woman cooked and served her husband for dinner? The cook, his wife, the neighbor and their dentist, or something like that?
112. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
wonkers2
“alistairconnor, I will reply on FTC's behalf:”
Please don't. You can't seem to do it accurately. I think you have your work cut out for you replying on your own behalf. Don't take on too much.
113. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
alistairconnor
“Nobody is mistaking this sort of broadcasting for objective information.”
Nobody? You just incorrectly accused me of doing this. Is this your idea of a retraction?
114. AzureNW - March 8, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
Then of course, there are the Night of the Living Dead movies. And an episode of the old Twilight Zone, where sin eaters eat a meal served atop a dark ages plague victim.
115. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:13 PM PT
wonkers2
“I proposed here in the FRAY consideration of a law that would keep the hands of the General Electrics of the country off of the TV and cable networks and newspapers, but nobody seems to agree.”
You want a law passed that *no* one agrees with? Shouldn't you persuade, say, half the people to agree with you first?
116. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
nellminow
“Most individual shareholders, …object to corporate behavior like huge CEO pay and perk packages.”
You might be right that most would say that. I frankly don't know. But if they did, it would be kneejerk, rather than informed opinion. The pay packages of most CEO's as a percentage of net worth would round to zero. In terms of prioritizing what to care about when evaluating a company, it might be in the top 100 items, but it isn't in the top 20.
“Pension funds are supposed to consider proxy voting a "fiduciary responsibility" but it is hard to imagine the people voting the proxies for the GM pension fund voting against a management recommendation of another corporation.”
Actually, it isn't hard to imagine at all. I take it you aren't paying attention to what places like Calpers are doing with their votes.
“In that book, we say that corporations are designed to be externalizing machines the way that a shark is designed to be a killing machine -- no malevolence, no ability to consider consequences,”
If your book says corporations are unable to consider consequences, then your book is wrong. Laughably wrong.
117. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
nellminow
“As for the initial issue of outing corporations, I am all for making information available, especially about campaign contributions, charitable contributions, CEO and director pay, conflicts of interest, etc.”
Are you unaware that CEO pay is public record (for public companies)? How do you think the business magazines get all the information they publish?
As to more info on campaign contributions etc., I'm with you.
118. FreetoChoose - March 8, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
AzureNW and ChristiPeters
As thoughtful hinted, irradiation can materially reduce the incidence of food poisoning. But many gadflies are trying to scare the public about it. So you were wondering what you could do? Do a bit of homework on the issue, and then write letters to newspapers and magazines asking them to cover the issue.
119. thoughtful - March 8, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
wonkers2, if you don't want GE running a network, who would you want? At least as a publicly held corporation, it is subject to review and public disclosure. Do you suppose a privately held corporation would be more open? I doubt it.
120. arkymalarky - March 8, 1999 - 5:21 PM PT
Arkansas had an excellent newspaper, the Arkansas Gazette, oldest paper west of the Mississippi. Gannett bought it out and ruined it. It sold out to the much inferior Democrat and is now called the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Better than the Democrat used to be, but nowhere as good in quality as the old Gazette.
121. JJBiener - March 8, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
Arky - "It sold out to the much inferior Democrat. . ."
Taken out of context this line could be applied to so many things in Arkansas. (g)
122. chloel - March 8, 1999 - 6:49 PM PT
thoughtful
When I take a glass of milk out of my refrigerator, I instead think, "Golly, this locally (and organically) raised milk tastes good. Not only that, I've seen the stream below their farm, and it still has fish in it. Good deal."
Then I pour it on my not-genegineered cornflakes, and think "Thank heavens my cornflakes aren't indebted to Monsanto, which is unashamed to admit that it's destroying a public good - the pest control ability of the Bt bacteria - for private profit, and with the expectation of making more profit by patenting an alternative."
I did some research on food irradiation; four or five years ago, it looked likely that it would create some unknown molecules, some of which were expected to have harmful effects or unknown degree (as does searing food). The health *of the consumer* was likely to be better, on balance, than eating food stored in current bad conditions. The immediate drawback is at the production end; as with medical radiation, it creates invisibly dangerous waste and adds risk for workers in the treatment plant.
It is possible to produce food safely in the first place; from my brief but glorious experience of French markets (fresh, clean and local!) I'd guess that that is the European choice.
123. chloel - March 8, 1999 - 6:50 PM PT
122 should have had "of unknown degree", not "or...".
124. arkymalarky - March 8, 1999 - 6:55 PM PT
Message #121
hardeeharhar.
125. wonkers2 - March 9, 1999 - 5:33 AM PT
Thoughtful, my point was not public vs. private corporation. The issue I was raising was whether it was good public policy to allow the media to be gobbled up by industrial corporations. I would prefer to see the NY Times to continue to be an independent public corporation with majority control in the Sulzberger family rather than be bought out by Microsoft General Motors or Archer Daniels Midland or Pacific Lumber. Concentration in media tends to stifle the free market in ideas.
126. FreetoChoose - March 9, 1999 - 6:20 AM PT
wonkers2
“Concentration in media tends to stifle the free market in ideas.”
If you are right (and I tend to agree) then the concentration in media would create an opportunity for someone to come in and step into the gap. So have we seen any media companies taking advantage of the trend toward industrial ownership of media? Well, yes, Fox, a media company, has started news shows. I trust you are applauding this direction?
127. wonkers2 - March 9, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
Well, I find it hard to applaud anything that Fox and the evil Murdoch empire does, but Murdoch's empire is in the news business and at least would not benefit from arms subsidies or corn subsidies (ethanol) like ADM. So, what Fox is doing is not inconsistent with my theory of keeping industrial companies out of the news business. Setting that aside, it also is important to avoid excessive concentration within the media/news business. I am not sure the CNN/Time Warner merger was good public policy. There are too many one newspaper towns. The public might benefit from having some of the Washington Post's tentacles cut off. We have great variety in our sources of information in this country and we need to preserve it. That is my basic point. CSPAN is one of the greatest innovations in a long time. CNN is also very good. You can have the rest of so-called TV news (Except for McNeil's PBS news hour.)
My academic training and work experience tell me that conglomerates like GE are very hard to manage. GE and Berkshire Hathaway are notable exceptions. The corporate landscape is littered with failed and or poorly performing conglomerates assembled for the wrong reasons. I am content to let the market take care of this, except perhaps, in the field of news--TV, radio, newspapers. This vital area bears continual vigilance.
128. FreetoChoose - March 9, 1999 - 5:17 PM PT
wonkers2
“So, what Fox is doing is not inconsistent with my theory of keeping industrial companies out of the news business.”
Thanks.
“There are too many one newspaper towns. The public might benefit from having some of the Washington Post's tentacles cut off.”
You decry the lack of towns with multiple newspaper, and in the very next sentence, want to stifle one of the few examples. Did you even notice the irony as you typed this?
129. arkymalarky - March 9, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
Having a one newspaper state is even worse.
130. wonkers2 - March 9, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
FTC, I didn't make myself clear. My remark about the WAshington Post referred to Newsweek, some of their television stations and
ventures other than the WAshington Post.
131. wonkers2 - March 9, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
FTC, I didn't make myself clear. My remark about the WAshington Post referred to Newsweek, some of their television stations and
ventures other than the WAshington Post. I certainly don't want to "stifle" the Post.
132. alistairconnor - March 9, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
Message #122 chloel, I have often wondered at the lack of public debate surrounding genetic engineering in the USA. In Europe, or even in New Zealand, debate is raging, and the outcome - widespread deployment (or not) of genetically engineered cultivars - is still very much in doubt.
Perhaps there is a sort of voluntary censorship operating in American media? This stuff has been deemed uncontroversial - why? Because of the big US corporations who own the technology and stand to gain so much if it comes into worldwide use?
133. chloel - March 9, 1999 - 9:21 PM PT
I have no CLUE why there isn't more debate about genetically engineered food in the U.S. I don't know if we're a nation of optimists or artifically calmed by estrogen mimics.
There was, recently, a totally-unexpected-by-the-feds large outcry against proposed national standards for organic food that would have allowed crops with lab-modified genes. The standards are back on the drawing board.
There is certainly a lot of money backing the big US corporations' interests; Monsanto just bought the rights to the Terminator infertility complex (developed by the USDA!). Some company, I forget which, overturned a Vermont state law requiring rGBH-induced milk to be labeled as such, on the grounds that the dairy farms had the right *not* to identify their product as a free-speech issue. Then there are the Food Anti-Defamation Laws, cf. Oprah.
Of course, this is possible because the US is pretty much mining off its topsoil. Someday we'll have to change. Here's a tie-in to the GG&S thread; maybe nature-protection is what cultures develop after wrecking their original foodstocks... or, the cultures that develop some degree of preservation survive. It all works out in the long run.
134. CalGal - March 9, 1999 - 9:27 PM PT
Alistair,
Isn't the simpler answer that the people reading the papers just don't give a damn about the situation?
Which is undoubtedly silly of them, but more likely than some sort of voluntary censorship.
135. chloel - March 9, 1999 - 9:29 PM PT
THere's been a sloppy conflation of 'corporate' and 'business' in this thread. The former is marked by limited liability, which is why people acting through corporations are very frequently indifferent to the effects of their actions on anything but their salaries.
President Lincoln didn't trust them, for instance. I can't find the quote online, but the Founders also thought they were an instrument of undesirable English profiteering.
136. chloel - March 9, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
CalGal, the beef companies will still sue a paper for suggesting that they use animal-byproduct feed in their yards. It has a chilling effect on reportage.
137. CalGal - March 9, 1999 - 9:39 PM PT
Chloel,
Alistair was suggesting voluntary censorship due to gain, if I understood him.
Fear is more plausible, but I still think that the media would brave lawsuits for ratings or copies sold. Combine fear with public disinterest and sure, I can buy that they might not report on something that isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to their sales but might get them sued.
138. chloel - March 9, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
Pubs don't profit when an issue gets pulped at the distributors.
Can't remember if that most recently happened in the US or UK, though. There's some feeling in the UK that Blair is getting pressured by Clinton to support unlabelled GA food. Even if Clinton isn't doing it himself, the WTO holds a big stick and tends to wield it for the big companies.
(Are you actually arguing that Monsanto and Beatrice and ADM *don't* use money pressure to change food reporting? Or just that it doesn't matter because statesiders will eat anything?)
To the servers, citizens! We will have freedom of the press when every free citizen has one!
139. CalGal - March 9, 1999 - 10:37 PM PT
Chloel,
"Are you actually arguing that Monsanto and Beatrice and ADM *don't* use money pressure to change food reporting? "
Well, if they do, it was big bucks down the drain. I wish they'd spend more money on their god-awful TV commercials instead--they just ruin the Sunday talk shows.
"Or just that it doesn't matter because statesiders will eat anything?"
Truly, I don't know enough about the specifics to assert anything. But "food reporting" really isn't one of the career paths that journalists flock to. It's a dull area, Chloe. The public only wants to know if there is bacteria in their Odwalla--and all the money in Monsanto doesn't stop that from getting out if it happens to one of their products.
But if the news isn't immediate and dire, the percentage of public interest is normally insignificant. Which means I doubt it is affecting purchasing decisions.
As I said, I've not thought much about it. But on its face, it seems pretty obvious. The public interest is small, so I see that trumping any actions the companies might take to try to suppress coverage.
But if you know of specific cases where you think a story would have made a big difference in public perception and purchases, I'd like to see them.
140. jerryel - March 10, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT 142. wonkers2 - March 12, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT 143. thoughtful - March 12, 1999 - 10:13 AM PT 144. wonkers2 - March 12, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT 145. wonkers2 - March 12, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT 146. thoughtful - March 12, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT 147. FreetoChoose - March 12, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT 148. wonkers2 - March 12, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT 149. thoughtful - March 12, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT 150. chloel - March 12, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT 151. wonkers2 - March 12, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT I have no disagreement with anything in your last post. I guess, as I seemed unduly critical to you, you seemed unrealistically uncritical to me.
Monica and the Corporate Controlled Media
I am reading Andrew Morton's "Monica's Story"--enough of it to feel that Ms. Lewinski's and the President's relationship developed into one that began to fulfill the need we have for an Other in our life--someone who validates us and mitigates our loneliness. I am impressed by Monica's intelligence, high empathetic I.Q., and the great vitality she demonstrated in enduring her terrible ordeal. Her openess and her honesty seem to overide for me any of her so called moral failings. The seeming immoral and self destructive behavior as shown by the President and his mistress may be a springboard to evoking personal authenticity and even happyness, especially in the context of of a bad marriage or a stifling career.Their story reminds me of "Lady Chatterly's Lover"--in reverse, where the sexually and intimacy starved person is a man instead of a woman.
1.Now that the politicians and the prosecutors, their spinmeisters as well as the talkingh heads have had their say, isn't it time that we focus on the human aspect of Ms. Lewinsky and the President? Hasn't the moment arrived for the essential interpretation of what has gripped the country's attention for so long to be turned over to the artists [novelists and poets], artistic scholars and experts in human behavior?
2.Will this not better enable us to make up our own minds of what is the nature of the human drama that has serendipitously been placed before us.
3.Is it likely that the corporate controlled mass media will allow 1 and 2 above as well as the human story to go forward?
4.Is it in the corporate interest to allow a frank and honest presentation of a relationship that reveals what people need in their lives by way of intimacy, self validation, and even fulfilling work? Would they be fearful that a true airing of the story would allow the mind of the nation to consider the full aspects of the human condition?
"isn't it time that we focus on the human aspect of Ms. Lewinsky and the President?"
No. It is time to focus on issues besides the private lives of other people.
Bankers Trust got the CNBC "How to Succeed in Business Award" today.
NYT: Bankers Trust pleaded guilty yesterday to Federal criminal charges that senior officers and employees had illegally diverted $19.1 million in unclaimed checks and other credits owed to customers to the bank's own books to enhance its financial performance. The bank agreed to pay a $60 million fine to the Federal Government.
The bank also said it would pay a fine of $3.5 million to New York State for the illegal scheme. Some of the unclaimed funds taken by the bank were to have been turned over to the state.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan also charged that between 1994 and 1996, bank officials, including a managing director and a senior managing director, had created a "slush fund" of the unclaimed money that they used to supplement income or offset expenses "as Needed" at the end of financial reporting periods, falsely enhancing the bank's financial results for that period."
I presume it's safe to assume corporate apologists, thoughtful and JJBiener don't work for Banker's Trust. [BT, one of the largest U.S. banks, is being acquired by Deutsche Bank AG.]
The Justice Department is pulling the criminal investigation of the tobacco industry. 5 years of investigation with two dozen prosecutors resulted in only one guilty plea.
Where's the outrage?
They should turn it over to Ken Starr. He knows where all the bodies are buried. He burien 'em.
buried
chloel, re your milk from your fridge, I guess you didn't think about the floor under your feet, the ceiling over your head, the walls and windows that surround you, the ambient temperature in your home, the appliance that keeps the milk cold, your ability to get potable water from a tap to wash your glass in, the glass, the soap you use to wash it, the towel you use to dry it, the electricity you have to power the equipment in your home and the lights you use to see at night, etc., etc.
wonkers2
Yes.
How DARE Bankers Trust take money left with them and keep it?
How could they not know that the government has decreed itself to be the ultimate owner of lost and found items?
The hypocrisy would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
FTC, Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you out of the corporate apologist group! My understanding of the reason for the escheatment law is to remove any incentive for banks to bamboozle their forgetful customers out of their money. Certain notification procedures must be followed including newspaper ads listing the names of everybody with unclaimed funds. Eventually they go into state coffers.
My recollection is that this is but the latest of a series of chicaneries pulled by Bankers Trust. My point is: "Trust in the corporations, but cut the cards."
I don't consider myself a corporate apologist. Just when I saw the bent of the premise of this thread, I felt it was necessary to have some argue the opposite position.
I am fully aware that humans in all walks of life are fallible and that corporations are usually run by humans -- Dogbert being a key exception! I've never said there wasn't a need for government regulations and laws and civil liability suits. Rather I've argued that any human endeavor results in costs and benefits that do not necessarily accrue to the same party. Laws, regulations, etc. help to keep those costs and benefits fair.
Still, in my view, the benefits brought about by corporate activities far, far outweigh the costs. In my view, the ratio of benefits to costs for corporations is also significantly greater than that of religions or governments.
thoughtful
You are ignoring the difference between corporation and business. Intentionally? Or are you just leaving out reasons to believe that limited liability and a fiction of personhood are needed to produce my dishware?
My floors, walls, and ceiling are all old enough to make it unlikely that either the raw materials or the labor were orginally corporate. I have repairs done by local craftspeople. My new double-pane low-E argon-filled windows were built by a local, not by a corporation. My water and power come from public utilities; the latter particularly pleases me, as it has for decades recognized that it is using public resources to meet citizen's needs, and has a duty to protect the resources as well as please the citizens; it is effective - by US standards - at promoting conservation, reducing the amount of power it sells, instead of needing to sell more to be successful.
I don't use a towel to dry my glasses - they dry on their own.
Some of my glasses were made by a corporation. I don't see how limited liability on its part improves them. My refrigerator will be a SunFrost or VestFrost pretty soon; SunFrost may be *incorporated*, I don't know, but is more noted for considering *embodied* energy.
Thoughtful,
home