One of the issues brewing during the run-up to the American election is the contention that corporations are people.
This idea is well established in legal decisions dating back to the early part of the 19th
century.
Most recently, the decision by the United States Supreme Court to allow corporations to finance election campaigns - through third party advertising - has led to the development of Super PACs. The absurdity of this system has been wonderfully satirized by Stephen Colbert.
Indeed, Mr. Colbert has taken the whole notion of corporate personhood and played with its many flaws to the amusement of his audience for several years. Alas, it is unlikely that the gentle poking of a late-night comedian nor the actions of such groups as the Council of Canadians are going to change the legal status of corporations.
And that is probably a good thing because the present system at least provides a stable platform from which business can operate.
In their defense, corporations do have many of the characteristics of organisms and are subject to Darwinian laws.
They evolve. They grow. They respond to stimulus. But perhaps most importantly, they are always seeking to find ways to get the maximum benefit from the minimum inputs.
The corporate model is designed to maximize profits. It is in the best interests of the shareholders. This doesn't mean that corporations can't be good citizens - just that it is not their primary function.
Globalization and the liberalization of trade fits perfectly into the corporate model. Corporations can and do operate without national loyalty.
Borders are transparent.
Maude Barlow appeared on CBC radio last week discussing this very issue.
The program's host contended that globalization has led to diversity and cultural understanding as well as providing goods and services that we would not otherwise enjoy. Just consider the varieties of foods that are available in any supermarket these days.
But as Ms. Barlow pointed out, minimizing wages - which are a big part of the primary costs of doing business - leads to the outsourcing of jobs, goods, and services to lowest wage economies.
Why hire a Canadian engineer when one in another economy will work for a tenth of the wage?
The result is that many communities in Canada and the United States have seen unemployment rise. Or a shift in the structure of the labour pool from manufacturing to the service sector.
In an unrelated story on the CBC - one about the Canadian census - the president of a CAW local in Windsor, Ont. pointed out that in the 1970s, more than 20 per cent of the jobs in Ontario were in the manufacturing sector. Now, that number is less than 10 per cent.
This shift has seen high-paying, long-term stable jobs disappear in favour of much lower paying, transient positions.
This is part of the reason that average wages in Canada are not keeping up with the growth in the economy.
It is also why governments at all levels are able to convince the voters that taxes are too high. It is not that taxes are too high but that wages are too low.
However, that is a different discussion.
Ms. Barlow went on to point out that the departure of manufacturing jobs from the American mid-west has turned some cities into third world countries.
Cities such as Buffalo and Detroit are not what they once were.
The Conservative government seeks to change Canadian fortunes by expanding our role as bread basket to the world. That is, through the exportation of raw materials and particularly energy to other economies beyond the United States.
As I have said before, I think it is a mistake for the government to think of energy as a commodity and treat it as such but during Mr. Harper's visit to China this seems to be exactly the approach that his government is determined to take.
He has repeatedly said something along the lines "we have the energy and we are willing to sell it to you."
What he means is that we want to sell oil and natural gas into the Chinese economy. But, of course, this will only last as long as we have oil and gas to sell and our prices are cheaper than anyone else's.
The problem with this approach - and the liberalization of trade with China - is that corporations know no borders.
If we go the route of a free trade agreement with China, how many jobs will it cost us?
What will it do to our domestic economy?
Resource extraction corporations will need to continue to operate in Canada because that is where the resources are.
Forestry, mining, and agriculture will do just fine.
But what about the rest of the economy? Who is going to stop a corporate exodus?
After all, corporations have rights.
