To qualify “Third World,” just a bit, and contradict some presumptions you may have, Hans Rosling presents some interesting statistics.
A great number of factors contribute to the changes he presents in the following video (including education, western cultural advances, technological advances, et cetera), but it is undeniable that the World Bank and IMF loans / advisory councils do have some part to play in the few good effects of globalization. Increased trade and imports of the kind created by IMF opportunities, as well as the infrastructural models prescribed by the World Bank for creating prosperity in developing nations (though mostly benefiting U.S. of A corporations, and almost always damaging local economies) can help in feeding a nation more efficiently, and relieve certain political stresses.
These positive changes which have occurred are fairly surprising:
Bill Mckibben is the author of another selection from the bibliography, Deep Economy. The book is a fascinating essay on the idea of modifying our basic concept of what the economy is / can be, which addresses issues of food, the environment, entertainment, culture, and industrialism.
Above is an excerpt from a 55 minute video, where-in he gives a 20 minute speech, and answers some questions. The full video is available here.* In it, he bridges the gap between corporations + centralization, and food culture + civic relationship (as well as many other things).
The website hosting the video: FORA.tv has some great video features, including the ability to jump to highlights of videos, and displaying a synced transcript. They have a good number of other interesting talks that i will probably soon link to.
* Â Â i should say that he is not the best speaker, and that some of the correlations he draws are debatable, but this only slightly dilutes the talk he gives in this video.
Newscorp
Disney
Viacom
Universal Vivendi
AOL/Time Warner
Sony
Bertelsmann
If you’ve read a book, bought or seen a movie, watched any major TV station, or listened to almost any music on TV, radio, CD or iTunes, recently, you’ve accepted goods and services from one of these companies. The Media Giants, and their subsidiary holdings as of 2001, can be explored on the PBS page for their Frontline documentary, The Merchants of Cool.
The content of the website and documentary were both a little out of date even when i saw it on PBS in 2001 (things change quickly in this business), but it’s still good information about how things work[ed], and how the media business can be run, especially as it relates to kids.
Incidentally, there are currently 72 other Frontline documentaries watchable on the PBS website, many of which are on very significant topics, and are quite informative.
Some of you may have noticed a film just over there in the bibliography called “The Century of the Self.” It is a 4 part documentary, by Adam Curtis, which (in the director’s words):
is about how those in power have used Freud’s theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.
The first part is below, and all four parts can be found here.
The Corporate Entity, as we now know it today, has what is perhaps a surprisingly long history, and certain intrinsic characteristics of which most of us has have ceased to take note, ceased to care, or never knew.
the wayback.
Corporations have existed for thousands of years, and are documented in ancient Rome and ancient India; the most significant difference at that time between an individual doing business, and a corpus (a “legal” body) doing business, was that the corpus was legally immortal. This was attractive because a business could survive it’s founders and members without having to start over every time, leaving survivors able to build on the extant trust and relationships, already in foundation.
Through the age of early political colonialism, corporations continued to grow in number and popularity, under the umbrella term of “chartered company.” At this time, companies were chartered by monarchs, to conduct specific kinds of business, and no others, under the provisions and allowances of the charter (the oldest corporation still in existence is (according to Wikipedia), the Swedish Stora Kopparberg, a mining operation chartered in 1347. The rules outlined by the granting monarchs were designed for the foremost benefit of their ruling aristocracy, as in the case of the British East India Company, which was granted a 15 year monopoly on all trade in India and Africa in 1600.
As the United States created what is most likely the first Republic in the history of the world in 1776,2 they modified the codes and goals of corporate charterdom to have primary benefit be to the public at large, rather than that of the men conducting business, or the share-holders of the company. (At this time, the share-holders were liable fully for any actions of the corporation, just as the owners and operators were, additionally, they had a prominent voice in the governance of the business, as described by most U.S. of A charters.) They upheld the ancient rule whereby: if the government deemed the company in violation of the charter, it could be abolished at any time. This format of charter was short lived, however, and changed in 1819, when the Supreme Court granted the corporate entity some new rights. The most significant being: 1) that a corporation’s charter is inviolable, and 2) (codifying and expanding long practiced corporate standards into law) the corporation’s status in the legal and public realm is that of an individual, not a collective of people, but a single “artificial person.”
The 14th amendment to the constitution in 1868, while written specifically to protect newly freed slaves from persecution, was taken up by corporate lawyers to greatly expand the definition and abilities of this “artificial person.” The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was now able, under their interpretation of the 14th amendment, to be sued and to sue in court, and to own property (which can and often does include other corporations).
the present.
Over the course of history various other changes have occurred within business and tax law to give us a few more flavours of artificial people than existed in 1800. We now find the following basic types of business:
1) a sole proprietorship
2) a partnership
3) a cooperative
4) a corporation
Within the partnership there are general, limited, and LLP. The differences have to do with governance and liability. General partnerships have 2 or more partners who govern business, and are fully liable monetarily for any actions or failures, et cetera. Limited partnerships have 1 or more general partner, and many limited partners, Only the general partner is liable, but all partners limited or otherwise govern the business. An LLP, or limited liability partnership has only limited partners, though all still govern the business, that is, all partners have positions which are operational, but also similar to those of share-holders in a publicly owned corporation.
As per corporations, we have:
1) the S Corp
2) the C Corp
3) the LLC
4) the LLLP
5) the Series LLC
There are also the Nevada Corporation—which is distinct only in the allowances afforded by Nevada’s corporate charter for doing business in other states—and the Delaware Corporation, which is similar, but with even further expanded “latitudes” for managerial operation controls. Lastly is the Massachusetts Business Trust, otherwise called an unincorporated business organization which is an organization that can exist in any state despite it’s common name, but in all other respects is a mystery to me. Frankly, i just have never put any research into trusts, and relatively little into NGOs or NPOs (non governmental organizations, and not-for profit organizations), though that’s mostly because i’ve never started one, and that may well soon change.
In any case, S Corporations differ from C Corporations in taxation, while their structure is essentially the same. The exception being that the income of a C Corp is taxed as normal, where the income of an S Corp is not taxed, but is rather applied, Pro Rata, to each Shareholder. It’s also significant that hese two types are really just classes of the other types of business, by which i mean, they can overlap and you can have an S LLC or a C Series LLC.
An LLC is a limited liability corporation, working to protect it’s owners from debtors and financial failures just as an LLP protects it’s limited partners. An LLLP is the newest form of business in the list: a limited liability limited partnership, a sort of cross between an LLC and an LLP. Finally is the Series LLC, which is (to dumb it down a bit) a few LLCs working together with protection from one another, but operating as one company.
As i understand, most major companies are Limited Liability C Corporations.
Now, why have i gone through all this? to fully differentiate it from the newest kid on the block, the B Corp.
Rather than a classification with focus on how money exchanges hands, how taxation occurs, responsibilities to share-holders, or any other legal rights, the B Corporation classification focuses on doing good in the world. They shift the primary operational focus (as it is written in corporate law) from earning increasing profits per quarter for all share-holders, to doing so only if it is possible within social and environmental sustainability. This tends to change quite a lot in practical terms, as many companies choose to focus on that profit margin at considerable social and environmental costs. From the B Corp site:
B Corporations are a new type of corporation that are purpose-driven and create benefit for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
B Corporations are unlike traditional responsible businesses because they:
Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards.
Institutionalize stakeholder interests.
Build collective voice though the power of a unifying brand.
They plan to do this by virtue of their B Lab, which:
[ . . . ] is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization governed by a process of broad, transparent multi-stakeholder engagement. The mission of B Lab is to support B Corporations and this emerging sector by 1) certifying and rating B Corporations through the B Ratings System; 2) developing and disseminating a legal framework to institutionalize stakeholder interests within existing corporate law; 3) recruiting and promoting B Corporations; and 4) helping B Corporations access purpose-driven capital markets.
Clearly, an exciting option, and one which the B Corporation website claims to already have 134 registered business, representing 31 industries, and more than $920 million in the marketplace.
The trailer above is for a Canadian documentary describing all the ways in which this new model of B Corporation has become necessary. That is not to say it’s an extended ad for the B Corp, in fact it never mentions the organization once, but rather simply presents what the filmmakers find to be wrong with the trends in our transnational corporatocracy: superseding governments, negatively effecting everything from developing nations, the environment, local economies, and social justice.
Please watch the film, and read about the B Corp.
1 The full 2.5 hour film “The Corporation” can be seen in it’s entirety on google video, in two parts: here (part 1) and here (part 2).
2 See ryan’s comment, below, and my response, and feel free to join the conversation.
