26 ms·

Article seems somewhat biased, as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! Let's not pretend tha

Article seems somewhat biased, as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! Let's not pretend that they were or are saints. The reason why it's hard to stop huge multinational corporations is because they're unaccountable to the public, and because they're in league with governments. Legislation usually favours these huge corporations as a consequence.

lumberjack 11y ago
I think it also have a lot to do with a bunch of trade agreements that were signed between nations. For example, would Ireland be used as a tax haven if it wasn't part of the EU and EEA? Also the way ownership and property rights are actually codified into law is very weird when you consider it from a global perspective. The reason shell companies work is that on some level the owners are not actually considered owners but on another level they are.
rayiner 11y ago
People ignore the most important thing, which is that huge multinational corporations have enormous influence because they employ so many people. More than 20% of the private-sector workforce is employed by a Fortune 500 company. And a huge number of the non-Fortune 500 companies exist to serve the Fortune 500 companies (think parts-suppliers for the automakers, wireline contractors for telecos, professional services firms, etc). Multinationals control the single most important thing in politics: jobs. That guarantees them enormous political influence.
- wpietri 11y ago
  I doubt that's the key factor. If it were, we wouldn't have aggressive outsourcing and layoffs be endemic in the Fortune 500. I suspect the more likely explanation is that they have enormous influence because they have a lot of money. We certainly have a lot of evidence that people with lots of money continue to have a lot of influence even when they don't employ a lot of people.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    > We certainly have a lot of evidence that people with lots of money continue to have a lot of influence even when they don't employ a lot of people. Do we? The tech industry for example makes enormous amounts of money, but has relatively little political influence because it employs relatively few people in relatively few states. Sundar Pichai can't call up a Congressman in Indiana and casually mention the 5,000 workers they have in Fort Wayne.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      That's the only possible reason you can think of for tech's supposed relative lack of influence? Rather than, say, these possibilities: * new industry, therefore less entrenched in existing power networks * until recently, relatively low spending on lobbying * technology people not known for political savvy * technology people inclined to assume that merit and savvy will carry the day * tech industry leaders more ethically inclined, or at least less inclined toward legalized bribery I don't think making money is sufficient. Politicians care about other people's money because they can get some of it.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  > Multinationals control the single most important thing in politics: jobs. This political obsession with jobs seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Perhaps going hand-in-hand with the rising influence of corproations. It makes one wonder if the myopic focus on "job creation" is really what politicians should aspire to.
gilleain 11y ago
> as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! That's the entire point of the article! It's saying that when (inevitably) US/EU business do terrible things then there are mechanisms available to try and stop them. However - it claims - those mechanisms don't exist or a re weaker for multinationals outside EU/US.
- AstralStorm 11y ago
  Bonus points for spotting mechanisms of avoidance of these controls - e.g. the use of subcontractors and relocated companies.
powertower 11y ago
> Article seems somewhat biased, as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! Not promoting narratives of western/white guilt is not the same thing as being "biased". The majority of the problems in the 3rd world are caused primarily by native interests and inside forces - that are corrupt, divisive, don't care, will brutalize their own people, etc. Yet the majority of stories completely absolve those parties, and focus entirely on the west. And because of this, for this reason, the problem never gets solved.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  It's a complex story but I don't think that narrative is true at all. The reality of ongoing neocolonisation is never really told in the media, whereas the corruption of third world countries often is.

lumberjack 11y ago

I think it also have a lot to do with a bunch of trade agreements that were signed between nations. For example, would Ireland be used as a tax haven if it wasn't part of the EU and EEA? Also the way ownership and property rights are actually codified into law is very weird when you consider it from a global perspective. The reason shell companies work is that on some level the owners are not actually considered owners but on another level they are.

rayiner 11y ago

People ignore the most important thing, which is that huge multinational corporations have enormous influence because they employ so many people. More than 20% of the private-sector workforce is employed by a Fortune 500 company. And a huge number of the non-Fortune 500 companies exist to serve the Fortune 500 companies (think parts-suppliers for the automakers, wireline contractors for telecos, professional services firms, etc). Multinationals control the single most important thing in politics: jobs. That guarantees them enormous political influence.

wpietri 11y ago
I doubt that's the key factor. If it were, we wouldn't have aggressive outsourcing and layoffs be endemic in the Fortune 500. I suspect the more likely explanation is that they have enormous influence because they have a lot of money. We certainly have a lot of evidence that people with lots of money continue to have a lot of influence even when they don't employ a lot of people.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > We certainly have a lot of evidence that people with lots of money continue to have a lot of influence even when they don't employ a lot of people. Do we? The tech industry for example makes enormous amounts of money, but has relatively little political influence because it employs relatively few people in relatively few states. Sundar Pichai can't call up a Congressman in Indiana and casually mention the 5,000 workers they have in Fort Wayne.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    That's the only possible reason you can think of for tech's supposed relative lack of influence? Rather than, say, these possibilities: * new industry, therefore less entrenched in existing power networks * until recently, relatively low spending on lobbying * technology people not known for political savvy * technology people inclined to assume that merit and savvy will carry the day * tech industry leaders more ethically inclined, or at least less inclined toward legalized bribery I don't think making money is sufficient. Politicians care about other people's money because they can get some of it.
drjesusphd 11y ago
> Multinationals control the single most important thing in politics: jobs. This political obsession with jobs seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Perhaps going hand-in-hand with the rising influence of corproations. It makes one wonder if the myopic focus on "job creation" is really what politicians should aspire to.

gilleain 11y ago

> as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! That's the entire point of the article! It's saying that when (inevitably) US/EU business do terrible things then there are mechanisms available to try and stop them. However - it claims - those mechanisms don't exist or a re weaker for multinationals outside EU/US.

AstralStorm 11y ago
Bonus points for spotting mechanisms of avoidance of these controls - e.g. the use of subcontractors and relocated companies.

powertower 11y ago

> Article seems somewhat biased, as if US and European agribusiness hasn't done similar in countless other countries with similar brutality! Not promoting narratives of western/white guilt is not the same thing as being "biased". The majority of the problems in the 3rd world are caused primarily by native interests and inside forces - that are corrupt, divisive, don't care, will brutalize their own people, etc. Yet the majority of stories completely absolve those parties, and focus entirely on the west. And because of this, for this reason, the problem never gets solved.

Synaesthesia 11y ago
It's a complex story but I don't think that narrative is true at all. The reality of ongoing neocolonisation is never really told in the media, whereas the corruption of third world countries often is.