63 votes

Why Were Corporations Illegal Before 1819?

While many here believe that Corporations are part of a healthy Free Market, it should be noted that our founders fought the British Corporations AS WELL AS the British Government.

So when you think it's "libertarian" to defend corporations like Monsanto, think again.

_____________

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations were often terminated if they caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

http://www.reclaimdemocra...
___________________________________________________________________
But aren't corporations just part of the free market? Isn't that what capitalism is all about - corporate interests driving the economy?

Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a government office; instead, permission from the government was needed (usually via an act of the Legislature)

http://www.psychologytoda...
____________________________________________________________________
UPDATE:

Watch "The Corporation" documentary Free,

http://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The fact is, if an officer of

The fact is, if an officer of a company commits an illegal act, they may still be held personally liable for their actions. So, this erroneous notion that personal responsibility plays no role in a corporation is ludicrous.

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

While, in theory, what you say could be considered to be true (though that is doubtful). In practice, it is never true. Corporations are structured to basically exist outside of the law.

Corporations have criminal fines levied against them, and those responsible for the decisions are never held accountable and almost never even identified.

You are partially correct when you say that "corporate personhood" is not the same as being a person, but not in the way you claim. A person may be held accountable, a person may be inprisoned, killed, and even apparently tortured according to our current legal system all as a response to criminal activity. A corporation may only be fined. In all other ways, a "corporate person" enjoys all of the same rights as an individual, period. This has been the claim in court, repeatedly.

An *owner* has a right to speak. An *employee* has a right to speak, even on the owner's behalf, if that permission is granted by the owner. A make believe government construct such as a "corporation" cannot have rights without government enforcing them with a gun.

Liability cannot be truly reduced, only shifted. That shifting is an externality where it get's relocated to what some might consider victims/slaves.

If the government did not give these special rights and privileges, then the market would automatically balance itself as the need arose.

Example:

"Big Pharma gets rich when you get sick. Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical corporation in the U.S., pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S. history, receiving the largest criminal penalty ever for illegally marketing four of its drugs. It was Pfizer's fourth such case. As if Pfizer's massive use of animal experimentation wasn't heart wrenching enough, Pfizer decided to use Nigerian children as guinea pigs. In 1996, Pfizer traveled to Kano, Nigeria to try out an experimental antibiotic on third-world diseases such as measles, cholera, and bacterial meningitis. They gave trovafloxacin to approximately 200 children. Dozens of them died in the experiment, while many others developed mental and physical deformities. According to the EPA, Pfizer can also proudly claim to be among the top ten companies in America causing the most air pollution."

Q: Who went to jail? Who EVER goes to jail? Unless they defraud investors.

A: No one.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

As I understand it, you two

As I understand it, you two are arguing about when an employee of a corporation is considered a separate entity from the corporation and is, therefore, held personally responsibly for his or her criminal act.

I'm just trying to figure this out, but I'm at a loss about the reasoning that sustains an employee acting illegally under the umbrella of incorporated entity. As I understand it, Velvet is arguing that criminal acts are not protected by incorporation. Wolfe is arguing that, while this may be true in law, in practice, corporations my exert so much power that law enforcement gets fearful and doesn't investigate, or if it does, prosecutors back off.

wolfe's picture

Almost.

The employee cannot act as separate from the corporation under the corporate personhood setup. Every action they perform, has the responsibility relocated to the corporation.

Here is an example to help you understand more directly:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-556653.html

Through a combination of decisions made by various employees, it resulted in the transmission of HIV to hemophiliacs (over 5000).

Now, these employees, made decisions to support the bottom line, which caused the company to commit what otherwise would be a criminal act, but because they are able to hide behind paperwork, responsibility diversion, ethics policies, etc etc, they are not even required to name the decision makers and claim no wrong doing.

If I personally, as a business person, sold contaminated blood products that caused a fatal disease in 5000 people, I would be tried and convicted of mass murder.

Bayer pays a few bucks, claims no wrong doing, and the problem goes away.

This happens on a larger scale, daily.

In addition, they are allowed to cause events that harm people and property without responsibility (like pollution, etc) by hiding behind these same policies. All acts that would get us thrown in jail for the most part, but no employee or owner suffers that fate. And yet, they retain the profits.

Because of that, employees decisions boil down to how much will it cost the company if we get caught instead of will I go to jail.

Owners of these companies are the ultimate beneficiaries of these profits, and in fact employees WILL go to jail for defrauding investors.

All of this is created from the moral hazards produced by both limited liability and corporate personhood.

Does that help?

Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Yes, thank you, more

Yes, thank you, more questions.

So let's say I'm a secretary in a company that is intending to sell tainted medicine. I type up memos that help the company communicate how to accomplish these criminal acts.

How does the corporate structure protect me from criminal prosecution more than a simple partnership or sole proprietor structure?

Summary as I see it

There are numerous different discussions regarding whether the corporate status is a good one under a libertarian environment. Here's how I see them breaking down.

Liability:
The issue of liability is two-fold by five-fold. First there's direct liability where a product is sold that harms the buyer. (yes, services included - being brief here) I believe contractual liabiblity falls under this category in that if it's precluded by contract, then there can be no recourse other than that breaking the contract. That direct liability can be directed towards the business assets, the owners, the officers, the employees or the investors.

Second, there's indirect liability, or external problems which again can be targeted towards assets, owners, officers, employees and investors.

Different types of company and corporation structures allow different combinations of these liabilities to stand while deterring the rest. My libertarian stance is that regardless of business structure or 'directness of liability', if you profit from a direct liability related problem with foreknowledge, you and your personal assets should be liable. If you 'should' know beforehand but don't, you should only be liable to the level of your investment (skin - in terms of employees, etc.) If you had no way of knowing (or can prove you didn't) you should only be liable to the extent of current & future profits. In the case of an investor with a "loan" type of repayment (where profits do not affect the amount you get back), then you have no incentive to make the business more profitable and therefore lose culpability in a lawsuit. In short, the more you profit from and should/do know about a problem, the more risk you should shoulder.

This is applicable also to criminal charges that hold jail time. Although I do think the standard would be much higher, all those that are proven to know about the crime should be subject to it with punishment varying by the amount your profit is tied to that action.

What I believe this would do is to shift business investment away from the institutional, grand scale it is now back to the "more" local (relative term warning), lending system. I don't know of a societal benefit that occurs from having lots of people gain profit from a certain business making more profit. I believe the ultimate good comes from external people being limited to a pre-set, contractual profit for a limited time frame. (aka a loan, not long term investment) If you're going to make a lifetime income from profits taken out of a business, you should have certain responsibilities to society as any other employee.

The shift to this, if implemented, I believe would minimize the entire financial-ization of businesses. Gone would be the days where the news of a few on Wall St. can affect the entire economy within hours. The small businesses would need to get their money by convincing local investors (generically including banks) to share the risk or by offering local investors to blindly lend for an 'all or nothing' set interest return. Medium businesses would have the same scenario but would likely tap regional and maybe some national investors. Large and very large businesses would either have to make the case that shareholders on that scale are safe from liabilities or they would be forced into longer term loan type of help. This brings accountability to the business via the pitch that they give when courting money, but most of all, this halts the process of massive 'not me' profiting by those with all the money. As such, the wealthiest of investors would have increasing effort and risk required before they could make endless money by lending it. I think this would also stop the derivatives market as well as short and naked short transactions.

The last aspect that would benefit from this is that external control over a company's operation would be minimized. (Because they would hold unwanted risk) This brings accountability back to the owners, operators and employees of a company. To those who say that it would drive all business out of the country, I say fine. If a business, or entire industry, leaves, it will leave a hole which will be filled in by a new startup. Since a MUCH MUCH smaller cost of investment is felt by said company, it will be more profitable. The investors would not gain as much from their actions but would likely have more involvement unless they settled for a market set flat rate.

This has gotten long and I'm sure I missed some points so let's discuss.

My Opinion

Firstly, to avoid a debate over semantics, I'm not going to argue in favor of "the corporation" (different people are defining the term differently). Instead, I'm going to argue in favor of limited liability, which, I believe, is the crux of the matter.

1. The libertarian position is that limited liability for contractual obligations is perfectly legitimate, while limited liability for torts is illegitimate. This is because limited liability for contractual obligations is (by definition) a condition of a contract freely accepted by all parties concerned. Whereas, the victim of a tort did not enter into any prior contract with the tortfeasor, did not agree to limit the liability of the tortfeasor, and so the liability of the tortfeasor is not limited.

2. Everyone has the right to contract with others on the condition of limited liability: as everyone has the right to contract with others on any condition whatsoever.

3. When we say that a firm (e.g. a joint-stock company) "has" limited liability, all that we mean is that this firm always in fact contracts on the condition of limited liability; everyone who contracts with the firm does so knowingly on the condition of limited liability. Moreover, when we say a firm "has" limited liability, we usually mean that not only does the firm happen to always contract on the condition of limited liability, but that it is designed to do so: i.e. the management of the firm is not permitted by the internal rules of the firm to contract unless on the condition of limited liability. This is perfectly legitimate; the owners of the joint-stock company have every right to require that the management of the company contract only on the condition of limited liability.

CONCLUSION: there are, of course, many special privileges granted to modern corporations by the State, but limited liability for contractual obligations is not one of them. It is not a privilege at all, it is merely an expression of the right to freely contract, which we all possess. In a free society, firms having limited liability should not be prohibited.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

wolfe's picture

You have violated the terms of my contract...

You should desist, or risk being sued for breach.

Don't you see the letters after my name? Don't you know what that means?

Default contracts are the province of the state

You can enter into any contract that you want whatsoever, but externalizations are NOT allowed, nor are default contracts.

When you get the point, let me know, so that I can change my nick back.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Listen carefully

P <--> Q

This is called a biconditional. ; )

I'm saying, if the person contracted with the firm on the condition of limited liability, then the firm has limited liability with respect to their obligation to that person.

And the inverse:

If the person did not contract with the firm on the condition of limited liability, then the firm does not have limited liability with respect to their obligation to that person.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

wolfe's picture

That's fine.

Completely possible under current environment without corporations, LLCs or even a business for that matter. That is a standard contract clause that can be added to anything.

At least you have finally learned the definition of a strawman. What you argue for has no bearing on the discussion. Unless you are also arguing that you are allowed to have this setup as a default condition, which you have in previous comments.

What you have proposed is a DEFAULT condition without -acknowledged- consent.

Because they do business with the person, that must mean they agree to a default contract. That is what you suggest, and requires government to exist, because in real life, someone must have acknowledged consent for a contract to be valid.

As I stated VERY CLEARLY in my VERY SHORT response so that you might actually get it this time.

You cannot say that doing business with an entity is consent to agree to anything.

Agreement is agreement, and default agreements cannot exist in the real world.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Sir or Madam, it appears you

Sir or Madam, it appears you still have little to no understanding of the subject at hand. Please investigate and inquire at your leisure. Without a rational understanding of this subject your comments will continue to reflect that fact.

wolfe's picture

roflmao.

Drop the ad hom crap, and tell me where you think I am wrong? Because I am not, and you can't.

Further, you are in violation of my default contract which you must have consented to by communicating with me.

Either bring yourself into compliance by RTFMing, or risk being sued for breach.

What gives the letters LLC, Inc, Co. any more power than my RTFM? Simple, government.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

I have made the claim.

That neocons, fascists and corporate representatives attempt to hide behind the "business" concept when attempting to argue for corporations. Trying to make the words mean the same thing to the public. In this way, they make people believe we need corporations to have businesses.

I meant this in more of an abstract way, however... at

http://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw?t=5m11s

you find that they admit guilt to my charge, and explain the reason as the exact reason I claim that they do it. Notice that he can't say it with a straight face.

If they can shift the argument then they win. Because we all believe business is good. But corporations are the fascist incarnations of business, and do not represent all business models and mechanisms.

Business good. Corporations evil.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Simply put, this is nothing

Simply put, this is nothing more than rhetorical double talk. Try to frame your comments without so many loaded unproven assumptions.

wolfe's picture

Seriously...

I don't want to slip into ad hom crap, but you are making that very difficult. Do you make ANY effort to understand what you read before commenting on it?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

This is another must watch

The Corporation Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfMuvVuETQ

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

I finished the movie/documentary--

The Corporation.

I was raised to be a neoconservative, so I always believed that business was sacred; corporations do not equal business--

they don't equal free enterprise--

This has been life changing for me. I already had begun to turn from the things I had been taught as a child, but knowing all of these things is powerful--

Thank you--

everyone who contributed--thanks, OPer.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

wolfe's picture

That is awesome.

I am not sure if I ever said this. But I am always impressed with how open and willing to learn/listen you are, and subsequently form opinions that are not based on propaganda.

We don't always agree (but I think we usually do), but you always provide a bright spot in conversation.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

you are welcome--

:)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Corporations are government

Corporations are government protection against liability for ones actions. They should be outlawed and all companies and the people who create them should stand or fall on their on merits and be liable if they harm anyone!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Corporations ARE Governments, and Vice Versa

Most Western COUNTRIES are CORPORATIONS.
Most CITIES and AGENCIES, acting as GOVERNMENTS are CORPORATIONS.
Most EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL OFFICES are CORPORATIONS.

Every INDIVIDUAL in the U.S. is a corporate entity, filed at the time of your birth and acceptance of a social security number. This has been true since 1933 and the "bankruptcy" of the U.S. At that time every individual collectively became the collateral for the bankrupt nation, in their individual capacity as a corporation with a lifetime of equity and value.
The implications are STUNNING because:

ALL OF THESE "CORPORATIONS ARE PRIVATELY HELD AND FOR PROFIT

How is it that private bankers can profit from your lifetime of value and equity but you as an individual cannot? How can a corporation elect a President of the corporate United States since all corporate heads are appointed. (Who appoints our President?) How can a corporation tell us we have to pay taxes? How can a private, for profit corporation make laws that are "legal" for individuals? They can only make "rules" applicable to other corporations. Oh, yes we ARE corporations. But how can we as individuals be corporations if we never knowingly gave our consent, since consent is required? This means that a private government is run through the U.C.C. and Depart of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve, but WITHIN the sham appearance of a democracy.

Now some of the insane decisions by our politicians and wall street make sense. They were making decisions for their CORPORATE HEADS (certainly not for the peons) and in that regard their decisions made perfect sense.

The information and lists below came from www.removingtheshackles.blogspot.ca

Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS code number are assigned to corporations in America to track their credit ratings. Below you will find the DUNS numbers for the aggregate US government and each of its major agencies, those of the aggregate governments of each US state along with that of its largest city, and those of the aggregate United Nations and some of its major agencies. These corporate code numbers can be verified by using the following link to the D&B website and typing in the required information: http://mycredit.dnb.com/search-for-duns-number/

In checking DUNS code numbers for governments, you will find that they have many subsidiaries and shell corporations to lessen financial accountability. You will find that some of them are listed as being in a geographical location other than in their territorial authority, making their operations even more suspicious. The City of Chicago corporation, for example, is located in Washington, DC, the State of Montana Corporation is located in Chicago, Illinois and the State of Maine corporation – listed with seemingly sardonic humor as “State-O-Maine Inc.” – is located in New York City, New York.

You will often also see executive, legislative and judicial offices themselves listed as corporations.
Manta.com is a website for obtaining data on corporations. If the names of any of these government entities are entered, you will find that virtually all of them are listed as private, for–profit corporations. You will also see in the aggregate valuations of their assets that Manta.com provides is vastly greater than what is listed in these private government corporations’ fraudulent but well-publicized budget documents that seek to justify draconian but fraudulent budget cuts and their related tax-based extortion rackets.
This confirms that many hundred trillions of dollars of the people’s money listed in the semi-secret government comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) as government institutional investments are being siphoned off by the global banking cartel and those sinister forces behind it.

They are doing this via that obscure subsidiary of the private, for-profit Federal Reserve System known as the Depository Trust Clearing Center (DTCC), dba Cede Inc. (Again, note the sardonic humor.) This semi-secret entity fraudulently confiscates these investment funds as an executor after they have been registered by brokers, relegating investors to mere beneficiaries whose funds can then be lawfully – at least according to presently and commonly used Universal Commercial Code (UCC)-based statutory law, not constitutional or common law -- confiscated at the will of said executor.

The implications of this are staggering: not only has this corporate subversion of government happened in America and with the United Nations headquartered here, but it has happened in almost all of the nations of the world by means of similar corporate subversion enacted under different names. This definitely explains why governments at all levels in almost all nations no longer protect the public interest, but only special interests – specifically, the interests of their fellow predatory for-profit corporations whose actions are now destroying this planet and all life upon it.

The world could well see sweeping constitutionally-based legal and law enforcement actions in all of the nations of the world against those who have perpetrated crimes against nature and humanity. The new transparent governmental and financial models now being tested in the nation of Iceland. Likewise poorly publicized mass resignations of government, banking and corporate officials now occurring worldwide are both heralds of these imminent transforming events.

DUNS Numbers of the US Corporate Government and Most of Its Major Agencies
United States Government-052714196
US Department of Defense (DOD)-030421397
US Department of the Treasury-026661067
US Department of Justice (DOJ)-011669674
US Department of State-026276622
US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-Office of the Secretary-112463521
US Department of Education-944419592
US Department of Energy-932010320
US Department of Homeland Security-932394187
US Department of the Interior-020949010
US Department of Labor-029536183
US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)-Office of the Secretary-030945779
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-931691211
US Transportation Security Administration (TSA)-050297655
US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-056622429
Bureau of Customs & Border Protection (CBP)-796730922
Federal Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)-130221646
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-057944910
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)-003259074
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-079933920
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-364281923
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-037751583
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-020309969
US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)-003475175
US Public Health Service (USPHS)-039294216
National Institutes of Health (NIH)-061232000
US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)-927645465
US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-138182175
US Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-040539587
Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Fed)-001959410
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-878865674
National Security Agency (NSA)-617395215
US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-167247027
Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms & Tobacco (BAFT)-132282310
Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-926038563
Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-926038407

DUNS Numbers of Each US Corporate State and Its Largest City

State of Alabama-004027553 City of Birmingham-074239450
State of Alaska-078198983 City of Fairbanks-079261830
State of Arizona-068300170 City of Phoenix-030002236
State of Arkansas-619312569 City of Little Rock-065303794
State of California-071549000 City of Los Angeles-159166271
State of Colorado-076438621 City of Denver-066985480
State of Connecticut-016167285 City of Bridgeport-156280596
State of Delaware-037802962 City of Wilmington-067393900
District of Columbia-949056860 City of Washington-073010550
State of Florida-004078374 City of Miami-965299576
State of Georgia-069230183 City of Atlanta-065372500
State of Hawaii-077676997 City of Honolulu-828979612
State of Idaho-071875734 City of Boise-070017017
State of Illinois-065232498 City of Chicago-556057206
State of Indiana-071789435 City of Indianapolis-964647155
State of Iowa-828089701 City of Davenport-963855494
State of Kansas-827975009 City of Wichita-069862755
State of Kentucky-828008883 City of Louisville-943445093
State of Louisiana-0612389911 City of New Orleans-033692404
State of Maine-061207536 City of Portland, Maine-071747802
State of Maryland-847612442 City of Baltimore-052340973
State of Massachussetts-138090548 City of Boston-007277284
State of Michigan-054698428 City of Detroit-021733631
State of Minnesota-050375465 City of Minneapolis-009901959
State of Mississippi-008210692 City of Jackson-020864955
State of Missouri-616963596 City of Kansas (City)-832496868
State of Montana-945782027 City of Billings-068925759
State of Nebraska-041472307 City of Omaha-926604690
State of Nevada-123259447 City of Las Vegas-019342317
State of New Hampshire-066760232 City of Manchester-045009073
State of New Jersey-067373258 City of Newark-019092531
State of New Mexico-007111818 City of Albuquerque-129962346
State of New York-041002973 City of New York-021741036
State of North Carolina-830979667 City of Charlotte-809275006
State of North Dakota-098564300 City of Bismarck-080245640
State of Ohio-034309166 City of Columbus-010611869
State of Oklahoma-050411726 City of Oklahoma (City)-073131542
State of Oregon-932534998 City of Portland (Oregon)-054971197
State of Pennsylvania-933882784 City of Philadelphia-929068737
State of Rhode Island-008421763 City of Providence-069853752
State of South Carolina-067006072 City of Columbia-878281562
State of Tennessee-04143882 City of Memphis-051386258
State of Texas-002537595 City of Houston-967421590
State of Utah-009094301 City of Salt Lake City-017096780
State of Vermont-066760240 City of Burlington-037442977
State of Virginia-047850373 City of Virginia Beach-074736299
State of Washington-079248936 City of Seattle-009483561
State of West Virginia-828092515 City of Charleston (West Virginia)-197931681
State of Wisconsin-001778349 City of Milwaukee-004779133
State of Wyoming-832826015 City of Cheyenne-021917273

DUNS Numbers of the United Nations Corporation and Some of Its Major Corporate Agencies

United Nations (UN)-824777304
UN Development Program (UNDP)-793511262
UN Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization (UNESCO)-053317819
UN World Food Program (UNWFP)-054023952
UN International Children's Education Fund (UNICEF)-017698452
UN World Health Organization (WHO)-618736326

This is a list of publicly traded companies (corporations) with the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&match=&CIK=...

Home | Latest Filings | Previous Page
Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System
EDGAR Search Results
SEC Home » Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System » Company Search » Current Page
Companies for SIC 8888 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Click on CIK to view company filings
Items 1 - 40
CIK Company State/Country
0000311669 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK R6
0000866710 BANCO NACIONAL DE COMERCIO EXTERIOR SNC O5
0001026725 BANCO NACIONAL DE OBRAS Y SERVICIOS PUBLICOS SNC O5
0001045299 BANQUE CENTRALE DE TUNISIE DC
0000912239 CANADA MORTGAGE & HOUSING CORP DC
0001498597 CARSO INFRAESTRUCTURA Y CONSTRUCCION SAB DE CV O5
0001016472 CITY OF NAPLES DE
0001109609 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF JAPAN INC.
formerly: DEVELOPMENT BANK OF JAPAN (filings through 2008-09-29)
M0
0000033745 EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK N4
0000276328 EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA/CN
formerly: EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORP (filings through 2002-06-07)
DC
0000873463 EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF KOREA NY
0000205317 FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL D5
0000035946 FINLAND REPUBLIC OF DC
0001556421 FMS WERTMANAGEMENT 2M
0001179453 GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE DC
0001163395 GOVERNMENT OF JAMICA NY
0000931106 HELLENIC REPUBLIC NY
0000216105 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND Q2
0000889414 HUNGARY
formerly: REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY (filings through 2011-11-25)
NY
0000052749 ISRAEL STATE OF NY
0000052782 ITALY REPUBLIC OF L6
0000053078 JAMAICA GOVERNMENT OF L8
0000837056 JAPAN NY
0001551322 Japan Bank for International Cooperation M0
0000053190 JAPAN DEVELOPMENT BANK M0
0001109604 Japan Finance Corp
formerly: JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (filings through 2008-09-29)
M0
0000837335 JAPAN FINANCE ORGANIZATION FOR MUNICIPALITIES
formerly: JAPAN FINANCE CORP FOR MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISES (filings through 2008-09-29)
M0
0000821533 KfW
formerly: KREDITANSTALT FUER WIEDERAUFBAU (filings through 2004-11-12)
KREDITANSTALT FUR WIEDERAUFBAU (filings through 2002-10-11)
2M
0000835615 KFW INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INC DE
0000869318 KOREA DEVELOPMENT BANK NY
0001483135 KOREA FINANCE Corp M5
0000878519 LANDESBANK BADEN WURTTEMBERG DE
0001306843 LANDESKREDITBANK BADEN WURTTEMBERG FORDERBANK 2M
0001144797 LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE RENTENBANK I8
0000356049 LONDON FINANCE & INVESTMENT GROUP PLC/ADR/ NY
0001027457 NATIONAL POWER CORP R6
0000357024 NORDIC INVESTMENT BANK H9
0000202811 OESTERREICHISCHE KONTROLLBANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT C4
0000074615 ONTARIO PROVINCE OF A6
0000076027 PANAMA REPUBLIC OF DC

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar
Home | Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System | Previous PageModified 03/14/2012
Home | Latest Filings | Previous Page
Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System
EDGAR Search Results
SEC Home » Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System » Company Search » Current Page
Companies for SIC 8888 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Click on CIK to view company filings
Items 41 - 60
CIK Company State/Country
0000077694 PERU REPUBLIC OF NY
0000836136 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A1
0000862406 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK A3
0000842639 PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA NY
0000722803 QUEBEC A8
0000852555 QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORP C3
0001191980 REGION OF LOMBARDY DE
0000914021 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA DC
0000019957 REPUBLIC OF CHILE
formerly: CHILE REPUBLIC OF (filings through 2002-11-01)
F3
0000917142 REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA NY
0000873465 REPUBLIC OF KOREA M5
0000911076 REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL DC
0000932419 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
formerly: SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF (filings through 2002-04-10)
DC
0001030717 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NY
0000869687 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY NY
0000203098 SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCE OF NY
0000225913 SWEDEN KINGDOM OF V7
0000898608 TREASURY CORP OF VICTORIA C3
0000101368 UNITED MEXICAN STATES NY
0000102385 URUGUAY REPUBLIC OF DC

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar

So you should you be able to put a company out of buisness

If their lead based toys kill your child?

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

No one

No one is defending Monsanto, some of us are defending the free market and no government interference. The government is paid off by Monsanto, so getting them to do something is not what the liberty movement is about. More and more people are buying organic and non-GMO foods, and it didn't take government to do that, it took people waking up and being informed, which is what Ron Paul has always taught us. If Monsanto is doing something illegal, like bribing government officials, then you criminally prosecute them and vote out the politicians who take the bribes. Keeping politicians honest is one way to prevent this. There are many corporations who do and create things that are killing people, but getting into bed with big government to solve it is not how you do it. IMO

The problem is that the corps are ALREADY in bed w/ Gov't.

I'm not calling for more gov't. , I'm calling for abolishing special rights and welfare for corporations and allowing individuals and local businesses a chance to thrive.

Our founders had it right.

ok

I missed read it then. I am fully in agreement with you on that issue.

Jung called it

"Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way.

Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand."

- Carl Jung

So

Those of you who are against any form of a corporation of any manner. I am trying to picture how we would/could transition from our current system, to one where corporations were altogether illegal. What would you in effect force the many corporations that exist now to transform into? Would businesses no longer be able to raise capital by selling shares of their business that limited the stock buyers loss potential to that investment only? What effect do you think this would have on the overall economy?

to be honest--

I think it's too late--

I don't know how it could happen; it's too deeply entrenched; I believe, however, that "Babylon" (Jeremiah, Revelations) will fall--

and those who have supported Babylon will mourn--

I am not one of those Christians, however, who believes that only Christians will survive at the end.

I believe everyone of 'good heart' will survive--

especially according to how they have treated others.

If a person has done everything in his/her power not to support Babylon--

then that person will be able to live without Babylon--

But, then, I'm not a "Christians go to heaven; everyone else goes to h#ll" person--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I am wrong--

there are laws in place in some states to dismantle corporations that have crossed lines--

but it's a battle--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

wolfe's picture

You are the person that I am trying to reach....

With my statements.

Your confusion seems honest and sincere. Of course they could raise funds, they could do anything that they can do today. Many private businesses exist (that are NOT corporations).

It has nothing to do with making anything illegal. It would simply be removing the artificial benefits and protections bestowed on corporations that are NOT bestowed on any other type of business.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/