PLAYER57832 wrote: neglected to ensure that a remote entity designed SOLELY for the purpose of making money and shielding its investors and owners from the full impact of their business decisions, namely corporations, would not have the same power as individuals and thus effectively winding up eliminating individual power.
Wait... what?
Wikipedia wrote:The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people." By the time of Justinian (reigned 527-565), Roman Law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names universitas, corpus or collegium. These included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor.[9] Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[10] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.
During the time of colonial expansion in the 17th century, the true progenitors of the modern corporation emerged as the "chartered company". Acting under a charter sanctioned by the Dutch government, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) defeated Portuguese forces and established itself in the Moluccan Islands in order to profit from the European demand for spices. Investors in the VOC were issued paper certificates as proof of share ownership, and were able to trade their shares on the original Amsterdam stock exchange. Shareholders are also explicitly granted limited liability in the company's royal charter.[11] In the late 18th century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as,
a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
—A Treatise on the Law of Corporations, Stewart Kyd (1793-1794)
PLAYER57832 wrote:Corporations have a driven purpose to do nothing but make money.
Wait... what?
Wikipedia wrote:Environmental impact
Grounds for your GardenIn 1999, Starbucks started "Grounds for your Garden" to make their business environmentally friendlier. This gives leftover coffee grounds to anyone requesting it for composting. Although not all stores and regions participate, customers can request and lobby their local store to begin the practice.
In 2004, Starbucks began reducing the size of their paper napkins and store garbage bags, and lightening their solid waste production by 816.5 t (1,800,000 lb).[117] In 2008, Starbucks was ranked No.15 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of Top 25 Green Power Partners for purchases of renewable energy.[118]
In October 2008, The Sun newspaper reported that Starbucks was wasting 23.4 million liters (6.2 million US gal) of water a day by leaving a tap constantly running for rinsing utensils in a 'dipper well' in each of its stores,[119] but this is often required by governmental public health code.[120]
In June 2009, in response to concerns over its excessive water consumption, Starbucks re-evaluated its use of the dipper well system. In September 2009, company-operated Starbucks stores in Canada & the United States successfully implemented a new water saving solution that meets government health standards. Different types of milk are given a dedicated spoon that remains in the pitcher and the dipper wells were replaced with push button metered faucets for rinsing. This will reportedly save up to 150 US gal (570 l) of water per day in every store.[121][not in citation given]
A bin overflowing with Starbucks cups[edit] RecyclingStarbucks began using 10% recycled paper in their cups in 2004, which they claimed was the first time that recycled material had been used in a product that came into direct contact with a food or beverage.[122] In 2005 Starbucks received the National Recycling Coalition Recycling Works Award.[123] Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the 10% content 'miniscule' but Starbucks claimed they only used 10% recycled material because it is more expensive.[122]
Starbucks bought 2.5 billion cups for stores in North America in 2007. The 10% recycled paper cups used by Starbucks are not recyclable, because the plastic coating that prevents the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled. The plastic cups used for cold drinks are also non-recyclable in most regions. Starbucks cups were originally made using plastic No.1 (polyethylene terephthalate, PETE) but were changed to plastic No.5 (polypropylene, PP). The former type of plastic can be recycled in most regions of the U.S. whereas the latter cannot. Starbucks is considering using biodegradable material instead of plastic to line the cups, and is testing composting of the existing cups. The exception to this is stores in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, where paper cups are recycled to a local company called "Wriggler's Wranch", where they are composted. The majority of Starbucks stores do not have recycling bins; only 1/3 of company-owned stores recycled any materials in 2007;[124] however, improvements have since been made and recycling bins are popping up in more stores (the only thing hindering Starbucks' ability to have bins in every store is the lack of facilities for storage and collection of recycling in certain areas.)[citation needed]
Starbucks gives customers a 10-cent discount when they bring their own reusable cup, and it now uses corrugated cup sleeves made from 85 percent post-consumer recycled fiber, which is 34 percent less paper than the original.[124]
[edit] Fair trade
Starbucks coffee beansIn 2000, the company introduced a line of fair trade products.[125] Of the approximately 136,000 metric tons (300 million pounds) of coffee Starbucks purchased in 2006, only about 6% was certified as fair trade.[126]
According to Starbucks, they purchased 2,180 metric tons (4.8 million pounds) of Certified Fair Trade coffee in fiscal year 2004 and 5,220 metric tons (11.5 million pounds) in 2005. They have become the largest buyer of Certified Fair Trade coffee in North America (10% of the global market). Transfair USA,[127] a third-party certifier of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the United States, has noted the impact Starbucks has made in the area of Fair Trade and coffee farmer's lives:
Since launching its FTC coffee line in 2000, Starbucks has undeniably made a significant contribution to family farmers through their rapidly growing FTC coffee volume. By offering FTC coffee in thousands of stores, Starbucks has also given the FTC label greater visibility, helping to raise consumer awareness in the process.
All espresso roast sold in the UK and Ireland is Fairtrade.[128]
Groups such as Global Exchange are calling for Starbucks to further increase its sales of fair trade coffees.[129]
Beyond Fair Trade Certification, Starbucks argues that it pays above market prices for all of its coffee.[citation needed] According to the company, in 2004 it paid on average $1.42 per pound ($2.64 kg) for high-quality coffee beans, 74% above the commodity prices at the time.[130]
After a long-running dispute between Starbucks and Ethiopia, Starbucks agreed to support and promote Ethiopian coffees. An article in BBC NEWS,[131] states that Ethiopian ownership of popular coffee designations such as Harrar and Sidamo is acknowledged even if they are not registered. The main reason Ethiopia fought so hard for this acknowledgement was to allow its poverty-stricken farmers a chance to make more money. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In 2006 Starbucks says it paid $1.42 per pound for its coffee. At, the coffee Starbucks bought for $1.42 per pound had a selling price, after transportation, processing, marketing, store rentals, taxes and staff salary and benefits of $10.99 per pound.[132] As of August 2010, Starbucks sells only one Ethiopian coffee on its website and it is proclaimed by the website to be new.
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:07 pm
).