There should never be any corporate taxes. The cost is just passed on to us.
The tax code is extremely unfair to corporations. GE and XOM pay no taxes. All the corporations around here pay taxes. If you are huge you pay none. It is the small companies that get drained by the govt.
GEO928, oops, your pseudo ideological fixation, your tendency to label, your rigidity and your lack of awareness is not good for anyone .. consider your post .. compacted .. .................................................... "this statement is one of the BEST example of a complete lack of understanding of how a capitalistic economy functions.... Quote:They would be targeted toward making corporations more socially responsible. .. that concept is so inane it's sad.... .. unfortunately, people listen to this nonsense spewed by the Marxists....and, you see the economic results.... .. "MORALITY" & "SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY" are completely inappropriate words regarding corporations.... .. the word is "LEGAL"... .. and, if the law is moral & just, then, corporate behavior is socially responsible.... .. we are in chaos because that is NOT the case..." .................................................... Take my .. Quote: They would be targeted toward making corporations more socially responsible.
And your .. "the word is "LEGAL"... and, if the law is moral & just, then, corporate behavior is socially responsible."
The laws, Perkins referred to would be "moral and just" and yes you're right if corporations obeyed those laws then their corporate behavior would be considered socially responsible.
I couldn't believe the general content of your post. Where have you been? Where on earth did you get the idea that the idea that corporations should be socially and environmentally responsible is a Marxist creation?
I thought let's see what capitalists think of your position .. it only took one minute .. have a glance at yours again first ..
Quotations from Business and Thought Leaders on Ethics and CSR
"Campaigns against corporations have led them to take greater care that their goods are not produced under unacceptable working conditions for starvation wages. All of us, by the decisions we make about how we live and work and travel and consume help to shape an environment. To think and act morally, to do what is right because it is right, influence others; it begins to create a climate of opinion; good like evil, is infectious. We do not have to accept the unacceptable. The only thing that makes social or economic trends inevitable is the belief that they are. The unfolding drama of the 21st Century is one of which we are the co-writers of the script." - Rabbi Jonathon Sacks (The Dignity of Difference)
"Our consumers are very sensitive to social and environmental issues... We have actively engaged with them on these issues in the last ten years, and they have become very aware as consumers. They especially ask for information on environmental policies, workers' rights and product safety." - Walter Dondi, Director of Co-op Adriatica (Italy's largest retailer)
"Corporate social responsibility is a hard-edged business decision. Not because it is a nice thing to do or because people are forcing us to do it... because it is good for our business" - Niall Fitzerald, Former CEO, Unilever
"In my view the successful companies of the future will be those that integrate business and employees' personal values. The best people want to do work that contributes to society with a company whose values they share, where their actions count and their views matter." - Jeroen van der Veer, Committee of Managing Directors (Shell)
"The proportion of a company's total market value that exceeds its book value has increased from 40% in the early 1980's to over 80% at the end of the 1990's. This means that only 20% of a companies value is reflected in the accounting system... [thus the largest portion of a company's economic activities] can easily be overlooked." - Jurgen H. Daum in his book Intangible Assets and Value Creation
“Business has a responsibility beyond its basic responsibility to its shareholders; a responsibility to a broader constituency that includes its key stakeholders: customers, employee, NGOs, government - the people of the communities in which it operates.” - Courtney Pratt, Former CEO Toronto Hydro.
“The brands that will be big in the future will be those that tap into the social changes that are taking place.” - Sir Michael Perry, Chairman of Centrica PLC
"Greater transparency is an unstoppable force. It is the product of growing demands from everybody with an interest in any corporation - its stakeholder web - and of rapid technological change, above all the spread of the Internet, that makes it far easier for firms to supply information, and harder for them to keep secrets. Firms now know that their internal e-mails may one day become public knowledge, for instance, and many big companies must co-exist with independent websites where employees can meet anonymously to air their grievances. With greater transparency will come greater accountability and better corporate behaviour. Rather than engage in futile resistance to it, firms should actively embrace transparency and rethink their values and generally get in better shape." - Don Tapscott, co-author The Naked Corporation
“People are going to want, and be able, to find out about the citizenship of a brand, whether it is doing the right things socially, economically and environmentally.” - Mike Clasper President of Business Development, Proctor and Gamble (Europe)
"Not long ago the concerns of ecologists were as irrelevant to business planners as those of ethicists are today. “Green” has gone from being a disparagement to becoming a badge that no smart company would risk being without. Ethics are similarly en route to becoming a strategic imperative." – John Dalla Costa, Ethical Imperative
"We know that the profitable growth of our company depends on the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of our communities across the world. And we know it is in our best interests to contribute to the sustainability of those communities." - Travis Engen, CEO, Alcan
“It is not good enough to do what the law says. We need to be in the forefront of these [social responsibility] issues.” - Anders Dahlvig, CEO of IKEA, quoted in Financial Times.
"In terms of power and influence you can forget about the church, forget politics. There is no more powerful institution in society than business... The business of business should not be about money, it should be about responsibility. It should be about public good, not private greed." - Anita Roddick, Business as Usual
“Stakeholders want companies to make a profit, but not at the expense of their staff and the wider community.” - Brian Gosschalk, CEO, MORI, quoted in Financial Times.
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” – Warren Buffet.
“Companies that are breaking the mold are moving beyond corporate social responsibility to social innovation. These companies are the vanguard of the new paradigm. They view community needs as opportunities to develop ideas and demonstrate business technologies, to find and serve new markets, and to solve longstanding business problems.” Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Harvard Business Review.
"Companies with their eye on their 'triple-bottom-line' outperform their less fastidious peers on the stock market" - The Economist
"Ethics is the new competitive environment" - Peter Robinson, CEO Mountain Equipment Co-op
GEO9 28 .. did you watch the Amy Goodman/Perkins videos? Would you tell John Perkins he was a Marxist? Really? Please read and consider ..
Karl Marx vs. The Economic Hitman
Gautama .. Mar 21, 09, 04:03pm #1
Hello there. My prompt is this:
Carefully read the central argument of Perkins and then choose a theory seen in Goldstein's chapter three. (my textbook) Find a theoretical critique of Perkins and explain why this theory would have a problem with the EHM argument. Your response essay should be at least 500 words long.
I chose Marxism. (just for kicks, Im not a marxist)
In his novel, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the author, John Perkins, paints a dark and disturbing picture of US foreign relations. It is a world where a coalition between big business and government work just as the mafia would to economically and politically beat all global opposition into submission. It is the idea of hegemonic stability that drives US corporations to drive poorer nations deep into debt so that they can be called upon later for non-monetary payments. (I.e. U.N. votes, access to oil reserves, and other such "national interests".) Perkins claims to have lived the life of an "economic hit man" by travelling to developing countries around the world under the "technical" employ of a multinational corporation. Once there, EHMs proceed as the agents of their real employers, the US corporatocracy, to help them in their quest for economic imperialism and domination. Such a quest is pursued under an offensive realist perspective through the extortion, manipulation and exploitation of smaller and less wealthy countries no matter the cost. From a Marxist perspective the actions and realist justifications of John Perkins are hugely flawed on a fundamental level. What the realist logic that Perkins uses to justify the further impoverishment and exploitation of 3rd world countries fails to take into account is the dynamics of the ruling class/lower class relationship. This is because as destabilization occurs throughout the world, the malcontent of lower class nations rises. This malcontent breeds inevitable class warfare which creates the risk of revolution, war, and the destruction of our foreign assets.
The hegemonic ideal that Perkins' realism strives for only promotes stability in the short term. In the long term it breeds resentful enemies and decadent states that later lead to global problems. The anarchy that states following an offensive realist pattern take advantage of is the very thing that causes the instability that will be the downfall of Perkin's argument. Marxists would argue that this anarchy creates a division of wealth between those nations who have the power to take such wealth and those who do not. The solution to such a situation would be a completely multilateral revolution in economic systems. Other nations would need to be completely self sufficient, stable and independently wealthy to assure the security of the assets and trades that we have with them. Hegemonic domination is simply a global tyranny with the most powerful nations being the ruling class who exploit the lower classes and spread dangerous dissatisfaction. As the corporatocratic alliance of government and big business takes over the world, smaller nations will lose their citizens' basic necessities such as food and education. This creates populations full of angry and uneducated people who will be easily manipulated and highly motivated for action. Needless to say, without education this action will most likely be violent and destructive to US interests.
Offensive realism is not only the wrong way to help the United States but it is also the wrong way to help the rest of the world as well. Perkins' argument is simply immoral from the Marxist perspective as it seeks to undermine anyone it the way of self preservation. As the historical documents of the United States profess the equality of man like no other nation its government would logically be expected to attempt the promotion of the well beings of all people equally around the world. This is an impossibility with the logic that Perkin's operates under as an EHM. Dominating and controlling other nations through military and economic bullying from this standpoint is obviously un-American and furthermore anti-Christian. (Seeing as how the United States was originally formed as a Christian nation the extent to which Jesus would be disgusted with the offensive realist strategy that the US government now pursues is definitely worth noting.) If it can be claimed that Perkins has betrayed his realist government by revealing its true nature in his book, one could just as easily claim that through realism, the conspirators comprising the current corporatocracy (for which the US government must be held accountable) have betrayed the founding fathers.
The US government should, theoretically, be working to spread American ideals. Offensive realism is not only un-Marxian but also un-American. So what is it? What ideals is this corporatocracy trying to spread? It is the old and ruthless idea of imperialism through crippling control and brutal power politics. If we were to set aside all of the amoral activities that are detailed in Perkin's novel offensive realism is still a very dangerous way to "work for US interests." Hegemony only births instability in the long run which can potentially destroy the local populations that the corporatocracy manipulates as well as the very assets that they gain from such hegemony. Everyone loses in such a system. .. Tyler ..
EF_Sean [Moderator] Edited by: EF_Sean Mar 21, 09, 04:11pm #2
"simply immoral from the Marxist perspective " Actually, I don't think Marx said much about morality at all. Remember, he didn't call for a communist revolution or overthrow of the capitalist classes -- he merely predicted it. Likewise, he didn't view capitalism as evil, but merely as an inevitable economic stage that followed feudalism and preceded communism. He pretty much saw the world as being shaped by historical forces, which tends to eliminate moral concerns altogether.
Your essay gets off track towards the end. What does Perkins' arguments being un-American or un-Christian have to do with your thesis at all?
Otherwise, your essay is really well-written. Keep up the good work. Sean, EssayForum.com ..
Gautama .. 160 Mar 21, 09, 06:20pm #3
Ok this might actually turn out to be more interesting. Marx never directly stated that capitalism was evil but he did predict a certain progression that societies would transition through. You could argue that this progression would be evidence of social "progress" which implies that things are getting better. He does not state this directly but it could be induced.
Or you could say that a Marxist would suggest that capitalism and imperialism, specifically in the form of offensive realism, are immoral from the perspective of the American ideal (which has been influenced by christianity) because exploitation occurs which promotes a form of slavery and economic class separation. This does not promote the freedom and equality that Americans hold so dear to their hearts and makes the American dream impossible for the majority of the population. A Marxist might not view that as immoral but he/she would point out that a patriotic American would be contradicting themselves if they did not.
Talking about Perkins' realist arguments being un-American or un-Christian would then be more relevant as a Marxist would take those two forms of thought and show how they are contradictory to the philosophy of an offensive realist by using the logic of Marx himself. Perhaps that would be a truer Marxist critique? .. Tyler ..
EF_Sean [Moderator] .. Mar 22, 09, 01:35pm #4
Your reasoning on Marx is pretty much the same as many mainstream academics, so what you are saying is not foolish. I'd tend to disagree, though, because he viewed the progress you mention as inevitable. Morality requires a choice. That is, I have to choose to do good to be morally good. If I am forced to do it by circumstance, I can't claim credit for it. So, Marx probably would have viewed offensive realism as an inevitable historical development, something that the later stages of capitalism were always going to give rise to as capitalists attempted to maintain their social and economic advantages. "This creates populations full of angry and uneducated people who will be easily manipulated and highly motivated for action. Needless to say, without education this action will most likely be violent and destructive to US interests." Exactly, so leading, again inevitably, to the proletarian revolution.
"you could say that a Marxist would suggest that capitalism and imperialism, specifically in the form of offensive realism, are immoral from the perspective of the American ideal (which has been influenced by christianity) because exploitation occurs which promotes a form of slavery and economic class separation." Actually, I'm pretty sure a Marxist would suggest that the American ideal has always been an ideological tool meant to make the exploited accept their exploitation. That is, the belief in the American dream itself serves to promote and uphold a form of slavery and economic class separation, even within America, by convincing members of the proletariat to accept wealth inequality. Hence, offensive realism is perfectly in keeping with that ideal, in that it serves the same goals, albeit more honestly.
Offensive realism is not anti-Christian, specifically, though it may well be un-Christian. Certainly, the Catholic Church never attempted "dominating and controlling other nations through military and economic bullying . . ." Oh, wait, nevermind.
Also, I notice that the assignment calls for you to discuss a "central argument of Perkins." What is his argument, precisely? If he argues that America dominates and exploits other countries through corporate capitalism, then Marxists would probably agree with him. If he argues that this should not happen (and I assume he does, or why expose it?), the same is true. Or does Perkins argue that companies should act the way his employers acted? Sorry for the confusion, but I haven't yet read his book, though I have heard of it before, and probably should.
Hope some of this was helpful. .. Sean, EssayForum.com ..
EF_Kevin [Moderator] .. Mar 22, 09, 02:50pm #5
Cool, the rest of us are lucky to be able to learn so much from this discussion.
On an unrelated note, I think you should start with an introductory paragraph that is shorter. That is my personal opinion and strategy, and not any stylistic rule. You write very well, obviously, so I have to nitpick. Try dedicating an intro paragraph to giving a sucinct, interesting, introduction. It's not that your current intro paragraph is like, ill-structured or anything like that -- just that it's complex enough to need an intro of its own!
The rest of the essay is excellent! Very thoughtful and cool.
For the opening line... it's a little unwieldy. How about:
John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man paints a dark...
Or:
John Perkins paints a dark and disturbing picture of US foreign relations in his novel, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
You can help a lot of people by visiting the "Unanswered" threads!
Gautama .. Edited by: Gautama Mar 23, 09, 02:00pm #6
I always thought of the American ideal as that you reap what you sow and if you work hard enough you can become wealthy. With exploitation this is not the way the system works.(except in a limited number of cases.)
And, yes, my wording was off. Offensive realism wouldn't really be "anti-Christian" but as you said it would be certainly "un-Christian". When I think of what is "Christian" I just wonder what Jesus himself would say. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't really fit in with alot of what Jesus originally preached so I don't use them as my example for being Christian or un-Christian. I personally like to think that if Jesus were alive today he might endorse communism or socialism rather than capitalism. (Think how funny it was that during the Cold-War it was the non-religious group (soviet union) who attempted* to live Jesus's message closer than the United States (being founded with Christian morals) would ever would!) I feel like I'm going to get into trouble for that little comment but when I hear about books like The Gospel of Wealth I just can't help myself.
*of course it did not work and some of Stalin's activities would be obviously quite un-Christian. .. Tyler ..
Yes, but the fact that people believe it does work means that they accept levels of income inequality that they would otherwise reject. Thus, the meme of the American Dream is one promulgated by capitalists to blind the proletariat to their own exploitation.
I seem to remember Christ suggesting that people should give away their goods to the poor. I don't recollect his ever suggesting that they should take away other people's goods and give them to the poor. Those who support the notion of a more capitalistic society tend to give more to private charities than those who support the idea of a more socialistic one. There are a host of theories as to why this is, but I believe that once you have decided the government should eliminate social inequalities, you are likely to feel free to abdicate any personal responsibility for the issue.
That said, Jesus was clearly a socialist hippie agitator, and if he ever shows up again, should be promptly forbidden entry into the States as a likely commie spy. I mean, he is by his own admission an agent for the Kingdom of Heaven. That hardly sounds in keeping with the spirit of individualism and democracy. .. Sean, EssayForum.com
Similar discussions:
* Marx vs. Gandhi [Power, Social Class, and Money] Essay, PLEASE HELP! * The alchemy of Race and Rights compared to Durkheim, Weber and Marx * "To be better acquainted with economic and finance" - UC Prompt 1 (Business Economic) * paper review in economic * Economic activity - personal essay * Essay for Academic interests: economic * Help with Question about Economic History (Australian) * Personal Statement for LLM in International Economic Law * Essay about young people and economic crisis * Creating flexible economic fields essay
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
