The Problem with CORPORATIONS

CORPORATIONS were originally "created" to serve man.

THEY were created for specific purposes ~ typically PUBLIC WORKS, for example: building a road, or a school.

Once the project was over the CORPORATION would be dissolved.

The idea took off, and soon, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS were being created to ring fence specific ventures.

Initially, shareholders could be held liable for damages caused in the NAME of the CORPORATION they owned.

But that soon changed when wealthy shareholders sponsored a change in LEGAL LAND RULES.

Shareholders could no longer be pursued for damages in respect of harm or injury caused by their CORPORATION. Instead, the LIABILITY of shareholders was now limited to the money they had paid for their shares.

INSURANCE POLICIES would pick up the slack to offer a modicum of protection and that "feel good / safe and secure" factor.

Let us not forget that those most likely to own PRIVATE CORPORATIONS were those with wealth.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the recognized duties of DIRECTORS (those appointed to control and oversee the day to day running of a CORPORATION) should become enshrined with one key requirement: to maximize profit for the shareholders.

Any remaining scraps of humanity and or respect for the environment were soon ushered out the door to be replaced with the standard line:

"the welfare of people and the environment is not our responsibility ~ it is the responsibility of policy makers in  PARLIAMENT".

If it weren't a complete abdication of man's inherent responsibility to safe guard his brother and the earth, this might appear, at first glance, to be a semi-respectful gesture so as not to tread on the toes of those handed the OFFICIAL responsibility for such matters.

The problem is, as we all know, respect doesn't come into it.

This is a case of wilful ignorance / negligence. Why find the humane path when an inhumane path is often less expensive?

Why dispose of pollutants safely when they can be tipped into a nearby river for free?

DIRECTORS making such an excuse are simply passing the buck, and coincidentally are most likely to be the very same DIRECTORS lobbying POLITICIANS to encourage no GOVERNMENT intervention in their sector/industry at all!

And if by some rare lapse of oversight, an ACT makes it onto the STATUTE book prohibiting pollution, DIRECTORS of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS can always elect to ignore the RULES altogether.

After all, what's the point of being wealthy if you have to follow the RULES which could impact your business and the bottom line.

As has been shown time and time again, wealthy CORPORATIONS will simply wait for someone to try and challenge them in a LEGAL-LAND court and then drag things out so as to wear down their opponent, not to mention play games with asset transfers, staff sackings and bankruptcies

There are countless films and documentaries depicting precisely that behaviour (DARK WATERS for one).

But let's look at something even more sinister ~ as if polluting the planet or wiping out tribal habitats were not bad enough [see AVATAR the movie].

In the film FIGHT CLUB it was made clear that should a car manufacturer (for example) discover a life threatening fault with its product, the product may or may not be recalled ~ it all depends on the bottom line!

"That's crazy" we hear you cry ~ "surely the CORPORATION would have to recall the product to save lives"

Alas 'saving lives' is not the driving factor - if you recall what was written earlier - profit is the driving factor.

In our example, the CORPORATION concerned would employ actuaries to calculate the profit made by saying nothing, and allowing individual court claims to be made (remember - not everyone injured or damaged, or having lost a loved one will sue for damages. Some have no will to fight and many have no money to fight and some lack the intelligence to even consider a fight).

So of the percentage that will sue, how many are likely to win and what is the average payout likely to be?

Compare that to the cost of a recall and the decision is made for you.

Just go with the highest profitability and who cares if little Timmy loses his mother: Timmy's loss is not part of the business plan.

Alas, that is how BUSINESS in NEVER-LAND works!

It's HEARTLESS and PSYCHOTIC

Did we seriously include the word: PSYCHOTIC?

In the NETFLIX series "MINDHUNTER" the FBI's Professor of Psychology says:

"Being a PSYCHOPATH is a requirement if one wishes to hold the OFFICE of PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES because decisions must be made without regard to humanity" or words to that effect!

Go Figure!

Likewise, psychologists have asserted that as many as 3 in 5 CEOs of LARGE CORPORATIONS display the characteristics of psychopaths for the very same reason. And you wonder why those managing CORPORATIONS don't give two hoots about the planet or people?

THEY are literally leading the 2D WORLD into oblivion and they will quite happily do it so long as the FICTIONAL TRADING ACCOUNTS of their FICTIONAL CORPORATION operating in the FICTIONAL LEGAL-LAND continues to show a FICTIONAL PROFIT ~ even if everyone dies [Watch the CORPORATION].

The FICTIONAL REALM is a dangerous uncaring realm within which to operate.

It needs to be reined in ~ now!