Talk:When Corporations Rule the World/Archives/2013

Untitled

The book appaers notable, but this article is written like a blurb. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's why I put a stub tag on it. Or do you mean something else by "blurb"? --Fisherjs 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References

This article does not have a References section. When you use embedded citations, you need to also put a full citation in a References section. --SueHay 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC) The forward is unfairly composed, using an obscure and politically biased reference to something named "Corporate Libertarians" that is an inaccurate, inappropriate and misleading way to describe Transnational Socialists, Corporatism (Nazism) or Corporate Socialists ( Neo-Nazi, Globalist etc) whom are being identified here. Libertarians did not support so-called 'free trade' merger-consolidation nor their monopolist and imperialistic agendas. "Neo-Con" Tory and Whig Cabalists, posing as US Republicans did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urlborg (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This section needs revision. In June 2007, an article from USA Today 2005 was cited supporting the claim that violent crime was on the decline. However, since the USA Today article was published, and well before it was used as a citation, there have been double digit increases in violent crime in the US. Another example of what appears to be OR is the statements and conclusions about North Korea. Did the author cite North Korea as a model, if not, this is editorial POV and should be struck.Cronos1 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• From the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports as prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. In 1960 there were 288,460 violent crimes. In 2006 there were 1,417,745. But in 1993 there were 1,926,020 violent crimes. People can say crime rates are going up or down dependings on the starting point. Like every book there will be good and bad reviews and unlimited chalanges to it acccuracy. Overall it a great book and well-researched. Mike172.131.1.190 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section is horrible

No where does the author mention that industrialized nations do not see a sharp decline in standard of living because of free trade. He just says that average wages decline and CEO salaries rise due to the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few firms. By contrast the standard of living in third world nations takes a huge dive south. Then economists compare the third world nations ravaged by globalization with the industrialized nations that see their wages slip and income inequality rise, and go on to say that globalization works for the first world. So what the author addresses is the faulty logic of some economists who spin this tidbit to promote economic globalization. Also, the author doesn't mention anything about command-centralized economies like North Korea, nor does he promote that model! Just because you are against free trade and globalization does not make one a Communist. The criticism section needs to be rewritten because it is really lousy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.201.177 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)