Corporations: The Necessary Evil

Watched the movie "Battle in Seattle" yesterday and the mind immediately got flooded with a plethora of thoughts.The movie is based on real events depicted through fictional characters and is the story of mass protests at the WTO(World Trade Organization) meeting in Seattle,Washington which ultimately led to collapse of the talks.For a full synopsis(at the risk of encountering spoilers) go to

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/synopsis

However, what I want to talk about is not the movie itself but issues- both core and peripheral- related to it.The protesters are opposed to the WTO because they feel that it's being used by the developed and powerful nations of the world to flood the third world and poor nations with their goods thus destroying any attempts at self-sustenance.All this is done under the garb of sugar-coated slogans of "Globalization" and "Free Trade".The carrot held out is the seemingly easier and cheaper access to goods for the people of all countries.The WTO envisages a single unified global economy but fails to make any provisions for the local farmers and entrepreneurs who would lose their livelihoods in face of stiff competition.Hey wait!How can imported goods come at so cheap a price so as to elbow out these guys?? The answer lies in- subsidies.

European nations and America give billions of dollars in subsidies to their own farmers who are then able to produce at a lower cost and sell cheap. Even so, they make handsome profits.Now, these countries are not agrarian in nature- meaning that only a very miniscule percentage of the population is involved in farming.This makes it easier for the governments to give heavy subsidies per farmer.On the other hand,developing and third world countries have majority of their populations involved in agricultural activities.For these countries whose economies are much smaller than those of the developed countries,it becomes all the more difficult to subsidize farming.This results in lack of usage of modern equipment and techniques in farming which has a direct impact on the quality and quantity of produce.If at all the farmer chooses to use modern machinery, the cost of production also goes up considerably because the farmer now has to pay back the loan taken from the bank to purchase the machinery. This limits his ability to sell below a minimum price.With cheap and better quality goods coming from elsewhere he is unable to withstand the competition. It's true that consumers which form a smaller portion of the population will now have access to cheaper goods but face the risk of becoming overdependent on imports owning to the dying out of local industry. There may arise a situation where owing to poor produce some year the developed country doesn't export its produce.The impact can be imagined. This effect continues up the production chain because the local industry won't be able to produce cheap after procuring the more expensive raw material from local sources whereas industry in developed countries will.The irony is- developed countries in WTO want developing countries like India to stop giving subsidies to their farmers but are not willing to do the same in their own.Clearly, all this is being done at the behest of and in the interest of large corporations which are driven by the profit motive.Infact(atleast as far as the US is concerned) a corporation is mandated by law to maximize profit for its stakeholders and thus can absolve itself of guilt,if any,in the pursuit of its objectives.

Now this is where it all gets damn confusing for me! All right, the corporates world over are driven by selfish motives and are willing to exploit or be involved in the exploit of others in pursuance of their goals.Also,many of us would automatically sympathize with the plight of those suffering as a result.But does that mean we should stop using the products of these companies? Not eat that burger at your favourite multinational joint, not purchase that pair of sports shoes from Nike(in India they are imported from China where its workers are paid a pittance and Nike pockets all the money),not consume products made from imported food-grains(not that ur gonna be able to tell anyway!),not use a laptop or an iPod(the lithium ion batteries use a substance found in abundance mostly in very poor African nations which use child labor to mine it-of course it's the corporations who supervise the mining),not wear diamond jewellery(try finding out something about DeBeers if u can not to mention blood diamonds)? This list can go on for ever,including things you cannot imagine life without-foremost being oil.Probably nothing in the world has caused as much exploitation as oil has. This exploitation has been carried out by both- corporations as well as governments- and continues to this day.Ever since reserves of oil were found in the Middle East at the turn of the century, the world has never been the same.A number of countries have been condemned to eternal hell for their oil,the most recent being Iraq and Afghanistan.Afghanistan itself doesn't have any significant oil but its control is vital for the US to enable it to bring oil through pipeline from oilfields in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan which will have to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan before entering the ocean.A Taliban controlled Afghanistan wouldn't allow that although US tried its best to negotiate with this barbaric regime.More on oil politics in later posts.

Even if everyone decided to boycott these goods or decide not to be employed by them what will happen to the workers who might go jobless as a result? The collapse of corporations will resonate throughout the economic chain because everything is interlinked(the current recession is proof).The world economy shall collapse and it will be utter chaos everywhere.And what shall we have achieved? Absolutely nothing.So clearly an outright boycott is not an option. Then what IS?I don't know and I don't think there IS an effective one.At most you can try your best to persuade these people to bring about a change of heart and hope for the best but clearly that doesn't smack like a practical solution.Human greed is too strong to let go of opportunities for the sake of others.Most of us want to be rich and powerful and I personally am no exception.

That leaves taking recourse to legal route as the only option.Tough laws may discourage exploitative,immoral,unethical and criminal practices and force corporations to behave.But again laws are made by governments-which may be democratically elected or dictatorial regimes.In case of the latter dictators aren't accountable to anyone and can therefore rule as they see fit.Naturally corporations would be willing to pay arm and leg to the dictators to bend laws their way in such an atmosphere.In case of a democracy,no one ever heard of politicians winning elections without money to run their electoral campaigns.Who pays the chunk of this money and what do they want in return? Be it either India or the US,time and again we have seen laws being heavily tilted in favour of corporations and the judiciary overlooking violation of laws by them.Organizations like the WTO are brainchilds of not governments but corporations who are eager to expand their reach at whatever price.With the weight of the government behind these guys what choice does that leave you with?

So where do I see myself after college?What do I want to achieve?Like many others I want a high-paying,satisfying,glamorous job and a stellar corporate career.Would I be hypocritical enough to join a multinational?Yes,I would.I've worked hard all my life to the best of my ability to realise my goals.I know there are things which I cannot change and are beyond my control.Besides,there is no corporation which doesn't perpetrate exploitation in one form or the other and given all the arguments in this post do I have a choice if I want to fulfill my dreams?(Assuming that I'm not planning on being an entrepreneur!)