Most corporations have more purchasing agreements than sales agreements, so the total risk of corrupt markets is worse on the expense side of the ledger than on

Most corporations have more purchasing agreements than sales agreements, so the total risk of corrupt markets is worse on the expense side of the ledger than on the income side of the ledger. Assuming the situation is less than hopeless lets say 10% of markets are corrupt or are corrupt 10% of the time, 10% of the time your revenue will be "lucky" but not the other 90% of the time, while you've got maybe 100 supplier contracts for everything from drinking water to strange electronic components and 10% of 100 means at least 10 suppliers will be destroying your company from the expense side of the ledger 100% of the time. Its sort of like claiming corporations love the idea of abolishing contract law, forgetting that no matter how much they'd make in revenue, it would never make up for their expense side going crazy. Another interesting comparison is in an extremely simplistic manner a company would appear to greatly benefit from dumping all their toxic waste out an open window where it blows 10 miles downwind at some city; however the only thing that could be worse than living in that downwind city is working in the same building next to that toxic open window... I was cool with my local nuclear power plant when it was owned an managed by a corporation 10 miles downwind, not melting down would be very enlightened self interest, but not so cool about the plant when it got sold to someone 1000 miles upwind.