BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Ethics, Money & Corporate Power. Can they co-exist?

  
  

Page: 1234(5)6

 
 
Pingle!Pop
15:58 / 28.03.08
I don't see where you pointed that out.

Jesus Christ, Buk. You said that we should look at the examples of Eastern and Western Europe, and the difference in levels of economic growth between these two regions would show that capitalism was superior. I, and since then Nolte, pointed out that Eastern Europe experienced greater growth, despite your assumptions.

That, surely, is flat-out wrong.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
16:01 / 28.03.08
And this:

I don't think poverty in Western Europe really exists anymore.

I find absolutely gobsmacking.

Sorry, Nolte, I meant to edit that to tone it down to instead say is not superior to other systems or something of that nature, but got caught up replying to other things.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
16:04 / 28.03.08
Pingles, as for the link between economic system and sociocultural capital I agree that there's no 1:1 correspondence where capitalism = great and socialism = bad. It's clearly more complicated than that. But the fact remains that human rights records in most all socialist countries were and are appalling, and furthermore, that these transgressions were explicit and institutionalised to a degree not found in most parts of the "Free World" after say WW1.

Personally, my biggest complaint about socialism (and growing up in Norway I've been exposed to some of the most socialist policies in Western Europe) is that the ideal of equality has an unwholesome tendency to be conflated with that of sameness. Everyone equal equals noone can be different, to exaggerate just a teensy bit.
 
 
Fist Fun
16:14 / 28.03.08
"I, and since then Nolte, pointed out that Eastern Europe experienced greater growth, despite your assumptions."

I don't follow. The only figures that cited Eastern Europe and Western Europe were the ones about GDP growth. Surely you agree that it is meaningless to compare GDP growth for different countries.

For instance, GDP growth in Chad is about 10% (I just looked it up). In the UK roughly 2.5%. This tells us nothing about the relative strength of the economies.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
16:29 / 28.03.08
Buk, you talked about growth and you talked, as Haus has just cited, about GDP as a great measurement. All of a sudden you're talking about immigration as a measure of the pluses and minuses of various countries' economic systems. I'm not seeing how this is not goalpost-moving of an epic scale.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
16:33 / 28.03.08
... And, indeed, you seem to be increasingly returning to arguments of "the West is better off than the rest of the world, the West is capitalist, therefore capitalism is great", which again goes back to the whole problem of a starting point in which the UK owned much of the world.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
16:39 / 28.03.08
Nolte, I'm not arguing that human rights weren't worse in Eastern Europe than Western Europe. I am saying, though, that it's an incredibly poor indicator of whether socialism --> poor human rights. It's widely acknowledged that wealth --> better human rights - I can look up a reference for that if you like - and a lot of poorer capitalist countries have human rights records easily rivalling those of former Eastern Europe.

I'm not really convinced by the equality/sameness argument. From my perspective, the strongest proponents of respect for diversity are usually those on the (far) left.
 
 
Fist Fun
16:57 / 28.03.08
Ok, but going back to the figure. I didn't miss anything did I?

When you said:
"I, and since then Nolte, pointed out that Eastern Europe experienced greater growth, despite your assumptions."

The only facts comparing Eastern and Western Europe relate to some irrelevant GDP growth figures.

Your initial interpretation was that these figures proved that Eastern Europe experienced a higher rate of growth. I assume you can now see that this is incorrect.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
17:09 / 28.03.08
Erm, no. As Nolte has pointed out, you've failed to provide any better metric for growth. And as both Haus and I have pointed out, it was the metric you said should be used until you realised it didn't support your argument. Really, I'm genuinely quite amazed that you're now acting as though this was not the case.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
17:12 / 28.03.08
From here on, I propose that we use sales of the very darkest chocolate as an indicator of how great a country's economic system is. It seems obvious to me that this is a pretty darn good indicator.
 
 
Fist Fun
17:19 / 28.03.08
Yeah, we can use GDP but do you understand why those figures for GDP growth are irrelevant? Yeah I probably phrased stuff incorrectly earlier which confused things but we clearly have to disregard those figures because they have no relevance in the form presented.

I am getting the impression you don't quite understand why that is.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
17:53 / 28.03.08
Perhaps you could explain? As far as I - and it seems to me everyone else - can tell, it's the metric you proposed to start with.

I, in turn, am very strongly getting the impression that you're trying to change the rules every time the rules previously adopted don't fit the thesis that capitalism is great.

In fact, your last post has just effectively said that we can use GDP, but any actual figures someone may be able to produce are irrelevant. Unless, presumably, they favour capitalist countries. Do you see that as a teensy bit problematic?
 
 
Fist Fun
18:15 / 28.03.08
Different economies have different trend levels of growth. The more developed the country the lower the trend.

So it is utterly meaningless to compare GDP growth side by side as a measure of the health of an economy.

For instance, GDP growth in Chad is about 10% (I just looked it up). In the UK it is roughly 2.5%. This tells us nothing about the relative strength of the economies.

So GDP growth is completely irrelevant. It advances neither your or my case and we are getting in to something a bit silly.

I think GDP would be a good measure but we'd have to get some fancy economist to work it out for us so that we are comparing like with like. I don't know how to do that but using obviously irrelevant data doesn't help anyone.
 
 
Digital Hermes
18:44 / 28.03.08
(Wow. I haven't been on for a bit, and this thread has just blossomed. I just read through everything from the beginning, and all the points fascinating. Anyway...)


Though I am enjoying the socialism/capitalism debate, particularly when it touches on ethics, (though the water gets even muddier in that region) I'd like to go back, if possible, to situations and models that are currently in play, and if those are capable of changing or adapting into forms that would be considered ethical...

(As for what's 'in play' I would suggest the West is operating with a capitalist system in which the governing bodies are not sufficiently limiting their behaviour, so as to allow unethical and wasteful behaviour. Being a resident in the North America, that's my primary frame of reference.)

Buk's model of marraige between State and Business, like most models, works best in the theoretical, but it does make me wonder if that's the sort of answer necessary for a more ethical world.

Can a politician rise to any form of power (in a democratic nation) without courting business and at least promising to enact changes in the intrest of business? In Canada here, we've seen in both Alberta and nationally political success going towards those parties that either don't plan to shake things up, or are actively making things easier for the business sector. I'm at work and don't have time for the research at the moment, but the recent elections in France and England seem to favour those parties who are not bringing in sweeping social reforms. (Please, feel free to tell me if that's wrong, though I don't know if it refutes my overall message.)

Assuming the world we're operating in has a system of national and international business that focuses more on profit than on ethics or human rights, how does that change? Can it come from government or from the businesses themselves?

On that subject, some smaller companies are marketing themselves as 'ethical' brands, meaning that you may choose to pay more for a product while feeling as a consumer that you have not supported any number of unethical habits by other companies. Leaving aside those companies who are often found to be less saintly than they tried to suggest, can the 'ethical' value be translated into a profit motive that larger corporations can follow?

If you could show that it was cheaper to produce something 'honestly,' and sell that fact (A loaded term, I know, we can go into it, if anyone needs to.) and more expensive to produce something as cheaply as possible plus the cost of subsequent hiding and spin doctoring to keep that from the public, then would that convince these multi-national firms and companies to adopt an ethical practice?

Essentially, ethical practice as both an element of product or company branding, as well as being a long-term investmemt. (On the macro-view, survival of your consumers/employees, not to mention the society and actual real estate these businesses dwell within.)

Sorry for the long post!
 
 
Pingle!Pop
18:46 / 28.03.08
Buk, it seems pretty clear to me at this point that no matter what evidence is produced to you, you're going to state that it's irrelevant - even if, as with the GDP issue, it's a metric you've proposed yourself - and continue to state based on nothing more than assumptions that capitalism simply works better.

This discussion is now just going round in circles, and it's making me frustrated. As such, if anyone wants to take over the argument, feel free, but I'm basically sick to the teeth with it, and really don't want to carry on.
 
 
Fist Fun
19:24 / 28.03.08
Yeah Moomin it is going round in circles. Best to leave it.

I have explained in detail why the specific evidence put forward is irrelevant and I don't know what else I can do. If my explanation of why it is irrelevant is incorrect then clearly you have a point...I don't understand why you can't admit you are wrong or explain where I am wrong so I can admit that I am.
 
 
Digital Hermes
19:29 / 28.03.08
Buk, if 'best to leave it,' why the parting shot?
 
 
Fist Fun
19:39 / 28.03.08
Ha ha. Fair point.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:33 / 28.03.08
PowerPoint really does have a lot to answer for.
 
 
Fist Fun
21:59 / 28.03.08
Well I dunno what you mean by that West but I would love for anyone to point out why the data regarding GDP growth as presented is not completely irrelevant.

It clearly and obviously is. I have provided explanation of why this is. It isn't about socialism or capitalism just the interpretation of data. Maybe I'm wrong in which case I would be happy to admit that and learn from that.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:11 / 29.03.08
Top of the page, Buk says: Your initial interpretation was that these figures proved that Eastern Europe experienced a higher rate of growth. I assume you can now see that this is incorrect.

But, that's just plain false. GDP is an accepted, although far from perfect measure of the overall state of a national economy. The figures I presented showed that USSR had larger GDP growth (generally and per capita) than US/WE in the years 1930-70. You object that comparing GDP growth trends is irrelevant because growth trends say little if anything about absolute, real economic wealth. Your example were Chad and UK growth rates, the latter having only a quarter of the growth but vastly superior real wealth levels. That's correct. But the fact remains that the growth was faster in the Soviet economy than either the 12 major WE countries or the US. If you deny that simple numerical fact I have severe problems taking you seriously.

Ok. Let's go back to the beginning. I quote from your second post: I think capitalism is great and it is a realistic way of creating massive prosperity and ending all global poverty.

I take it as self-evident from your take on capitalism that socio-economic indicators such as GDP levels and growth trends can be valid data to support or oppose your proposition. If you don't like GDP, fine, there's a million problems with it, many of them ethical. But then the onus is firmly on you to provide us with some hard data. Asserting that, since Eastern European communist states failed this must mean that capitalism (a concept you have pointedly refused to define in any coherent manner) is the best way of creating wealth and ending poverty, is a hypothesis so vague that I personally can't see any way of proving or disproving it. In other words, I find no worth or truth in it.

I repeat, come up with some data. Otherwise, your talking is just that.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:20 / 29.03.08
For those interested in alternatives to GDP, here's a couple of interesting links:

A high-powered conference called "Beyond GDP". Lots of presentation papers available.

GPI Atlantic - a non-profit research outfit developing the Genuine Progress Indicator, a green and ethical alternative to GDP.
 
 
Fist Fun
18:04 / 29.03.08
Yes Surah I clearly made an error when I said "rate of growth" here:

"Your initial interpretation was that these figures proved that Eastern Europe experienced a higher rate of growth. I assume you can now see that this is incorrect."

...but that was me being fudge fingered. Sorry.

But I am glad you agree with me that rate of GDP growth as presented is irrelevant. Does everyone understand that now?

The point that:

But the fact remains that the growth was faster in the Soviet economy than either the 12 major WE countries or the US.

while being true obviously and clearly tells us nothing, in the form presented, about the respective strengths of those economies. Does anyone still have a problem understanding that?

Can I ask why you even posted them in the first place. A mistake on your part?

As for other metrics well I can have a look. Yeah it reflects lots of other things but I find it telling that governments where private industry has been banned tend to not survive.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
19:08 / 29.03.08
You know what? It does tell us something about the respective strengths of these economies. What it tells us is that the USSR was developing faster, measured by GDP, than the US. And even if you counter that, well, the US economy was still 228% larger than the USSR economy in 1970, that doesn't detract from the fact that socialism created wealth proportionally faster than capitalism did in the US. Check out the short section on Wikipedia on the economic development of USSR.

Interestingly it gives different estimates as to the disparity rates between US and USSR GDP, saying that by 1930, USSR GDP was 10% that of the US, and by 1970 it was 60% that of the US, which actually is way more positive than my estimate. No references for that assertion though.

Anyway, my main point is that despite the huge faults in the Soviet system, the Communist regime did nonetheless drag Russia out of the middle ages and created a literate, numerate, decently fed and clothed, skilled workforce which manned a formidable industrial-military production system. All in the space of about 40 years. Performance-wise, that's pretty good.
 
 
Fist Fun
19:38 / 29.03.08
You know what? It does tell us something about the respective strengths of these economies. What it tells us is that the USSR was developing faster, measured by GDP, than the US.

Now you are talking about different sets of figures, specifically the US and USSR. But I still I don't understand how a higher GDP growth in the USSR compared to the US tells us anything about the respective strength of these economies.

The US was a much larger economy so it's growth would naturally be slower. On there own these statistics are irrelevant.

By your logic the fact that the GDP of Chad is growing at a rate of four times that of the UK tells us something about the respective strength of the Chad and UK economies.

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult. If I have misunderstood then please explain it and I'll admit I am wrong.
 
 
Fist Fun
19:49 / 29.03.08
"Anyway, my main point is that despite the huge faults in the Soviet system, the Communist regime did nonetheless drag Russia out of the middle ages and created a literate, numerate, decently fed and clothed, skilled workforce which manned a formidable industrial-military production system. All in the space of about 40 years. Performance-wise, that's pretty good."

I would agree that. That is certainly true.

A quick scan of that wikipedia article has a nice paragraph which pretty much sums up why socialism in the USSR collapsed and the fact that the USSR has an economy 60% the size of the US in 1970 and 20% the size of the in 1990 shows a clear failure of the economic system in the USSR in comparison to the US.

The article does talk about how a planned economy worked very well for a while in the 30s and post-war. Which is fair enough but it clearly ultimately failed.

Form wikipedia

"output and productivity slowed sharply since 1970. However, the planning ministries had failed to loosen their control of industrial production, storage and distribution in time to stem the prolonged stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s, which showed signs of a chronic problem. By 1990, the Soviet economy had plunged into its nadir and was estimated at about 20 per cent of the size of the USA.

The Soviet planned economy was not tailored at a sufficient pace to the demands of the more complex modern economy it had helped to forge. As the economy grew, the volume of decisions facing planners in Moscow became overwhelming. The cumbersome procedures for bureaucratic administration did not enable the free communication and flexible response required at the enterprise level for dealing with worker alienation, innovation, customers, and suppliers. During 1975-85, corruption and data fiddling became common practice among bureaucracy to report satisfied targets and quotas thus entrenching the crisis.

Calls for greater freedom for managers to deal directly with suppliers and customers were gaining influence among reform-minded Communist cadres during the mid-1970s and 1980s were largely ignored. Economic growth was at a standstill after years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:02 / 29.03.08
Yeah it reflects lots of other things but I find it telling that governments where private industry has been banned tend to not survive.

I'd be careful of trying to make that kind of ahistorical argument from history, Buk. As we know, Nazi Germany, which allowd private industry, did not survive. Socialist Cuba did Ergo, since the only relevant factor in the survival of a state, as it turns out, is whether or not it allowed private industry, this proves that Socialism is better than Capitalism. Obvs.

I'm not sure where we're getting or going on this one, though. So far when you are proven wrong you either say that the disproven claim was a typographical error, or admit that you are wrong but then restate your case as if you hadn't been proven wrong, by restating the same premise and possibly pulling another unsubstantiated metric out of the hat. Is this profitable for you? I'm not wedded to either position, myself, but you're making the case for Capitalism very badly.
 
 
Fist Fun
23:44 / 29.03.08
"As we know, Nazi Germany, which allowd private industry, did not survive. Socialist Cuba did Ergo, since the only relevant factor in the survival of a state, as it turns out, is whether or not it allowed private industry, this proves that Socialism is better than Capitalism. Obvs."

I am not saying it is the only factor. I believe that the economic success of a state plays a large part in the surival of that state (or at least the economic system of that state). Examples being the USSR and China.

It is a clear fact that states where private enterprise is banned have all but disappeared. Are you saying that the economic success of those states was not a factor in this?

"Is this trolling for private industry going anywhere, Buk? So far when you are proven wrong you either say that the disproven claim was a typographical error, or admit that you are wrong but then restate your case as if you hadn't been proven wrong, by restating the same premise and possibly pulling another unsubstantiated metric out of the hat. Is this profitable for you? I'm not wedded to either position, myself, but you're making the case for Capitalism very badly."

I hope that no one thinks I am trolling. I am openly discussing my beliefs, questioning them and backing them up with my logic and examples. So for me this is a very worthwhile discussion.

By proven wrong do you mean that I am incorrect when I say that GDP growth figures, as presented here, are irrelevant and tell us nothing about the health of seperate economies?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:53 / 30.03.08
I am saying that you have identified GDP and growth as ways to prove that Capitalism is the best possible economic ideology and are now pulling out other claims - immigration, historical survival (which involve many complex factors that you are, again, ignoring, simply restating your original contention).

I think my point of unhappiness is that your examples and logic are not strong enough to justify your dogmatism - I don't think Wikipedia is a complete source of unbiased information here, and even that is only occasionally cited. For example, on Chad, you say:

Fair point. That was wrong. I know little of the problems in Chad but the reason it is not as prosperous as Uk is clearly not that it does not have enough access to free markets. That was clearly a sloppy thing for me to say and not what I believe. Although trade is a crucial part of building wealth and a realistic way to end poverty.

The fact of your being wrong in your first attempt to explain why Chad's problems were caused by not enough free market exposure is acknowledged, but you then just restate your claims, without any backup. Trade makes everyone wealthy, so whatever is wrong with Chad, more trade could sort it. I find this blithe assumption particularly tricky, because trade has been canted in the favour of the rich nations, generally, for quite some time. Which ties into my thinking on coffee shops, actually, but it's a bit late to go into that, I think.
 
 
Fist Fun
09:12 / 30.03.08
I am saying that you have identified GDP and growth as ways to prove that Capitalism is the best possible economic ideology and are now pulling out other claims - immigration, historical survival (which involve many complex factors that you are, again, ignoring, simply restating your original contention).

I agree that these things do involve complex factors. I have asked you a direct question which you have chosen not to answer. Which was - "It is a clear fact that states where private enterprise is banned have all but disappeared. Are you saying that the economic success of those states was not a factor in this?". Please answer this question.

I think that, while yes there are many complex factors involved, that economic success is often an important factor in the failure to survive of the states that have banned private enterprise.

So when you say I have been proven wrong you are not referring to GDP growth being irrelevant.

The fact of your being wrong in your first attempt to explain why Chad's problems were caused by not enough free market exposure is acknowledged, but you then just restate your claims, without any backup.

I think I flippantly made one sentence stating that lack of enough of a free market could be the cause of all of the problems in Chad. That was wrong of me.

I don't know enough about that and it doesn't tally with my stated beliefs. I don't believe the market on its own is a complete or effective solution. You are completely right there.

When I mention Chad later I am making the point that the fact that Chad has a GDP growth rate of 10% versus the UK GDP growth rate of 2.5% tells us nothing about the health of those economies.

Trade makes everyone wealthy, so whatever is wrong with Chad, more trade could sort it. I find this blithe assumption particularly tricky, because trade has been canted in the favour of the rich nations, generally, for quite some time.

I think trade is part of the answer, a huge part, but it has to be in a fair, competitive market place. I would also be in favour of state intervention and regulation in areas where private enterpise is not suited.
 
 
Fist Fun
09:27 / 30.03.08
I think my point of unhappiness is that your examples and logic are not strong enough to justify your dogmatism - I don't think Wikipedia is a complete source of unbiased information here, and even that is only occasionally cited.

I would agree with you there about dogma. That's why I am openly admitting to thing like "well you I just always assumed that". A lot of this is dogma for me and it is important I work out whether it is right or not. So one of the reasons I am discussing this is to openly put my beliefs, logic and thinking out there so that I can see if they stand up.

For specific examples and logic you would to state which examples and logic you disagree with and then we could discuss them. Which is what we have been doing. Could be a long thread though (these aren't simple questions), which I have kind of hijacked, but certainly worthwhile for me.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
10:08 / 30.03.08
On the question of growth rates, I think you're right, Buk, insofar as growth rates reported without reference to absolute levels of wealth is pretty uninformative. Your example of Chad is telling. We all know that Chad is a extremely poor country and that UK is a pretty wealthy one: Wikipedia tells me UK's GDP per capita is 30 times Chad's. So, in that instance GDP growth rates can be misleading as a comparative indicator. But when the absolute wealth is less disparate, growth rates become more informative. And the US-USSR comparison is actually pretty good in terms of population, size, natural resources and other fundamentals.

Going back to the Excel sheet I linked to earlier.

Maddison estimates USSR GDP/capita in 1930 at $1448 (about what Chad has now), US at $6213. In 1970 the numbers are $5575 and $15030. US-USSR GDP/capita ratio lessens from 4.2 to 2.7 times in that period. I see those numbers as being informative. FYI the numbers in 1990 are $6890 and $23201, the ratio having gone up to 3.3.

It has been argued that the reason USSR economy grew less and eventually faltered in post-war years was not only to do with a stifling, incompetent bureaucracy, but equally caused by lack of access to technology and products on the world market. Pre WW2 US and UK entrepreneurs were investing heavily in the USSR, and the regime was buying all manner of industrial tech. Post WW2 the economic Cold War put a stop to that, despite previous trade agreements.

We could go on and on with this. My point stands. The failings of socialist states aren't simply to do with their economic ideology. Ergo, you can't use them as proof that Capitalism is The Best. As with Haus, I'm not wedded to either position, but surely you can do better than this?
 
 
Fist Fun
10:48 / 30.03.08
On the question of growth rates, I think you're right, Buk, insofar as growth rates reported without reference to absolute levels of wealth is pretty uninformative.

Thanks!

And the US-USSR comparison is actually pretty good in terms of population, size, natural resources and other fundamentals.

Yeah but the US economy was massively larger than the USSR so I don't see why it is a pretty good comparison.

It has been argued that the reason USSR economy grew less and eventually faltered in post-war years was not only to do with a stifling, incompetent bureaucracy, but equally caused by lack of access to technology and products on the world market. Pre WW2 US and UK entrepreneurs were investing heavily in the USSR, and the regime was buying all manner of industrial tech. Post WW2 the economic Cold War put a stop to that, despite previous trade agreements.

Ok, so the West was already advanced because it was already rich and because it didn't share industrial technology with the socialist states there growth faltered. I had never thought of that before. Makes a lot of sense. That certainly seems to be part of the reason for the economic failure of the USSR.

The failings of socialist states aren't simply to do with their economic ideology. Ergo, you can't use them as proof that Capitalism is The Best.

Yeah, fair enough. You are right. I would still say capitalism is a better system because of competition, free trade and the profit incentive.

I just don't get the argument were having all coffee shops run by the state would make things better.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
11:40 / 30.03.08
I would still say capitalism is a better system because of competition, free trade and the profit incentive.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Let's leave the issue of socialism aside and get back to the main focus of the thread. To my eyes, we're supposed to be talking about two interrelated questions:

1. Can capitalism* be reconciled with ethical living?
2. Is capitalism the best way to create and maintain wealth and prosperity*?

* Signifies that we need to agree on some basics. First what do we mean by capitalism? Second, how do we measure wealth? And third, what is an ethical way of creating prosperity?
 
 
Fist Fun
15:54 / 30.03.08
For number 1. Yes

For me the UK, US and EU states are what I would define as capitalist states. They allow and encourage private enterprise.

I say yes to number 1 because while private enterprise is prmarily interested in profit with no intrinsic interest in ethics the enterprise functions in a free market where individual consumers can impose their own ethical choices.

Also because the enterprise is under the ultimate control of government imposing regulations for the common good, the rule of law to prevent breaches of ethics as defined by law and a free press which will be quick to report on any ethical issues.

So I think the following makes it possible to live ethically under capitalism

1 - consumer choice ( and you need a system which allow competition to provide choice, private enterprise provides choice and thus makes ethical consumer choices possible)

2 - government regulation ( so think Sarbanes-Oxley is a government reponse to insufficient corporate regulation and corresponding abuse)

3- rule of law ( so while ethics means different thing to different people society has generally agreed, and enshrined in law, a set of fundamental ethics)

4 - free press ( so scandals will be reported on, slightly dodgy point in that business does control the press, however I think competition helps here as well even if one newspaper suppresses a report on a corporate breach of ethics it is unlikely (unbelievable?) all competitors would do the same.
 
  

Page: 1234(5)6

 
  
Add Your Reply