You are on page 1of 13

Red tape around the world: the globalisation of corporate law

"Red tape around the world: the globalisation of corporate law." The Economist, 23 Nov. 1996,
p.
77+. Student Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A18890075/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=f1b6
a673. Accessed 12 Nov. 2018.

After the Second World War, the United States kept on doing domestic work. However
after seeing how international work had a prosperous promise, in the 19th century, the United
States entered the international business, including corporations. By 1996, the British and
American Law firms had emerged as dominant powers in the corporation business. As having
American and British legal systems placed in several countries, and english being the common
language between these countries worldwide, helped in their dominance. However, each one
struggles to be more dominant than the other during this period of globalization. Though, both
are dominant in their own sphere, America has an advantage. Privisation, created by the British
is benefiting the Americans more. Privatisation requires the companies to get approval from the
Securities and Exchange Committees. Thus, American Law firms claim that it is better clients
look to them for help and advice since they would be better qualified. The competition has
become even more brutal as time progressed. Both companies have started to hire more and more
new graduates from foreign countries, and unsurprisingly, America has an advantage. Unlike
Britain where the salary is based on seniority, in America the jobs pay more as they are based on
performance. Though Britain claims to have more job security, the salary makes job
opportunities there less appealing.
y6 Though the article does not mention an author, it does provide the publication from
where the article was published. The Economist, is the newspaper from where this article was
derived. Even without knowing the author, the Economist holds up a reputation of its own. The
Economist is known for their information about business, validating the legitimacy of the source.
With no political allegiance to the liberal or conservative side, the newspaper provides authentic
news for their audience. However, the article does not adhere to the 5-10 year rule, as it was
written in November of 1996, the concepts within the article are relevant, but still the studies can
be questionable. As international work has tremendously increased so has competition. The
globalization of Corporations result in competition between major law firms globally. However,
though the article was written in 1996 the latest journal regarding the competition after this was
1999, making the information questionable. Though the information does not adhere to the 5-10
year rule, it can still be validated through out scholarly journals. When more research is
conducted on the issue of competition between the United States and Great Britain, several
journals talking about the rising competition between the two dominant countries in the
corporate industry, which covers all the same issues discussed in the article, however some
articles did present new information. Thus most sides were covered in this article. Moreover, it
clearly talks about the advantages the American corporation system has over the British, showing
bias towards one system over another. However, it does a small number of times talk about
advantages of the British System. Lastly, the purpose of this article was to inform the lawyers,
corporations, businesses, or anyone showing interest in the career information about the dangers
of globalization between two major firms, and who has the advantage. Thus, the article’s purpose
clearly is effective for the audience as it concerns anyone who is in the field of corporate law,
and providing information about the ongoing competition between the dominant countries
corporations.

Another arm of the law; Corporate crime


"Another arm of the law; Corporate crime." The Economist, 5 Dec. 2015, p. 56(US). Student
Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A450209394/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=f07
9b63b. Accessed 12 Nov. 2018.

The article begins to talk about how the Department of Justice’s largest infliction was
from under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. In this agreement the charges are forgotten if
the person committing the crime confesses, comply to being monitored, and change their
procedures. Due to how successful the DPA is resulted in them coming to Britain where they
already have made their first strike. It involved the ICBC and some officers claimed the charge
as “ ‘a milestone in the enforcement of the bribery offenses’ ” (The Economist). Seven additional
breaches could have been found, if the case was inspected further. Some of the specific charges
were related to the Standard Bank in which bribery had been committed to receive the support
and help of the Tanzanian Government. The ICBC had to pay over millions of dollars to the
Securities and Exchange Committee. This helps the litigation process that taxpayers have to deal
with thanks to the Deferred Prosecution Argument. Moreover, the issue of Criminal liability is
resolved with the aid of the DPA. One of the heads of an anti corruption business claims how
Criminal Liability is extremely hard to prove, and the DPA’s continuous success with these type
of cases is beneficial for the heads of Anti Corruption businesses, and people working in this
specific field.
The article "Another arm of the law; Corporate crime." is a trustable source, however has
information which makes the source invalid. Though the article does not mention an author, it
does provide the publication from where the article was published. The Economist, is the
newspaper from where this article was derived. Even without knowing the author, the Economist
holds up a reputation of its own. The Economist is known for their information about business,
validating the legitimacy of the source. With no political allegiance to the liberal or conservative
side, the newspaper provides authentic news for their audience. The article does adhere to the 5-
10 year rule, as it was written in November of 2018. When the benefits of the ICBC was
searched up, many articles did talk about the benefits, similar to the ones discussed in this article.
However, some articles also discussed the negative effects of ICBC on corporations, which
shows that the author is biased, not including all sides of the information equally. However, the
information on this source can be corroborated with several other articles found across the
internet. The audience of this article was geared towards the anticorruption businesses, banks,
taxpayers, corporations and anyone else affected by the ICBC. His audience is definitely affected
by the purpose of the argument. The article is about all the positive contributions the ICBC has
done, helping the banks, taxpayers, corporations, and businesses, by helping bring justice and
making tasks easier. Definitely the audience was supportive of the authors claims, knowing how
much the ICBC could or has helped them.
Monopoly or Democracy?

Hightower, Jim. "Monopoly or Democracy?" The Progressive, Oct.-Nov. 2018, p. 70. Student
Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A561120071/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=7de
be7e0. Accessed 21 Jan. 2019.
Since the earliest times in history, the American Aristocracy has attempted to concentrate
all the power in money into a single person or companies hand. On the other hand, the majority
of the public constantly fought for social justice and equal conditions. Thus, knowing this is how
the conditions have been in the past, it is not surprising to hear that the power and wealth in
America is being concentrated once again, resulting in a monopoly. One example is Apple. This
company has reached such a high stock value that there net worth is higher than combining
several renowned companies, which include Disney, Volkswagen, Bank of America, and Ford.
Moreover with Apple, companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon have been the dominant
ones in the stock markets. All of these monopolies rising are caused by mergers, resulting in
them to garner an ample amount of power, enabling them to control salaries, unions, political
domination, and eliminate smaller companies. All of these acts, are anti-American which is why
since the Boston Tea Party, however the government is not taking any action. For instance in
2007, the grassroots economy failed, however officials helped the taxpayers, resulting them in
garnering more power. Furthermore to prove that the government has taken no action against
monopolies is that in the United States almost 50% of financial assets is controlled by only five
banks. The reason this has not even been made publically aware about because 90% of the media
by fifty large companies, thus the media is a monopoly too, meaning they are not gonna write
televise stories regarding the concentration of power.
The article “Monopoly or Democracy” by Hightower Jim is definitely a source which can
be trusted, though there are some aspects which can make the information doubtful. Starting with
the cons of this source, the site where the article comes from is The Progressive.org. The website
is known for there information about progressivism, politics, culture, and maintaining a strong
liberal point of view. This does make the website biased, and the content given biased. However,
monopolization is a problem in society, affecting everyone other than the small percentage of
people who are gathering that power. Thus, being liberal or conservative has no influence on this
article, because it has no connection to political beliefs. Moreover, since the site is known for
giving information about politics and culture, the information and statistics provided here can be
trusted, since they are not a site which is not known for providing information regarding
corporate power and politics. Another point which is controversial about this text is that there
could potentially be biased because the author is a populist writer, and he may be only presenting
information from one side of the topic. However when I searched up this same issue, I was
presented with the same information from all the different sources I looked up. This article
addressed all the issues, that were brought up in the other articles. All the articles talked about
the same big companies like Amazon, google, facebook having monopolies. Moreover, this
article went even more detail about the statistics the company went to comparing it to websites
like the verge which discussed about these corporations. This means the author’s beliefs did not
get in the way of changing the information presented, and he addressed all sides, making it an
article with good coverage. The author too has credibility. At the end of this article, it talks about
the author, Jim Hightower, who is a public speaker, populist author, and writes in Hightower
Lowdown which discusses the fights between the elites and the majority of the ordinary people.
With his experience with researching information about the concentration of power in the elite’s
hands, and being a known author and public speaker, gives his article legitimacy, since he has
been constantly being informed and discussing about these important issues. Moreover the article
is undoubtedly directed toward weaker companies, employees working in the companies, and the
general public because it talks about how all of these elites are concentrating power. Moreover
the article discusses how they are able to do anything they want, and get out of anything they
could be held liable for. This was definitely effective for the intended audience because it makes
the audience aware of how the government is doing nothing to prevent monopolies from
occurring and what monopolies are doing with their power. Lastly, the article definitely adheres
to the 5-10 rule since it was published between October-November of 2018. Moreover,
monopolization, as the author said has gone all the way back to the Boston Tea Party, meaning
no matter how old the source is the information gives valuable insights, as this topic has been
going on for centuries.

Why Monopoly is not just a game

Schofield, Jack. "Why Monopoly is not just a game." Computer Weekly, 20 Mar. 1997, p. 32.
Student Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A19274448/GPS?u=glen 20233 sid=GPS&xid=e735
4e70. Accessed 21 Jan. 2019.

Monopolies are seen normally in the Computer Industry. For example Microsoft
Windows is used a lot, resulting in more training courses, programs, and hardwares, which
means more software. The monopolies naturally occur just because, of the times used. The idea
around natural monopolies are that when a person is buying an item, they never doubt
themselves when they purchase it, similarly to buying the Microsoft Word computers. However,
this excludes the exception when you have something else in mind to buy, where you do some
more thinking, and comparing prices. That is the thing with monopolies, they have all the
software, and items needed, that no one even ever doubts themselves before making the
purchase. Knowing all of the information, this demonstrates as well that once there is a product
which is so well known, like the Microsoft Products, displacing it would be really hard to do.
Continuing on with the Microsoft example, it was exceling past the Lotus 1-2-3, until 5 years
later. What occurred was Windows was changed to Dos in the market, and Lotus 1-2-3 and OS/2
started to be developed. However not all the time does the market change, resulting in
displacement. In the 1980s, the Risc Chip Suppliers wanted to change their processor, which
worried Microsoft due to the possibility of a future with there being no dominance of the usage
of Intel as a processor. However, no change was made. Thus, the market can make changes and
stay the same, however the major point to focus is on is what improvements can cause
displacement in the market? In reality, the answer is it depends on the change a company makes.
However, it is important as well to keep in mind, if a person wants to make that type of a change
which can affect a natural monopoly, make sure it is a fundamental change. It needs to be a
revolutionary improvements.
This article is a reliable source for people wanting to conduct historical research, and
definitely not for someone wanting current information about displacing natural monopolies.
First of all, the reason the article cannot be used as a source of current information on a topic is
because it was written in March of 1997. It does not adhere to the 5-10 year rule. Second, the
article is great for historical research about displacing natural economies because it is a
legitimate source which has good coverage, no bias, good accuracy, and several other factors.
First of all though Jack Schofield's name is given, we are only told he is an computer editor of
the guardian, which makes it doubtful if the source has accurate information. This does not
matter because the Guardian where Jack works at is known for providing accurate, reliable
informations, meaning Jack must have given accurate information as well. Also, though the
Guardian is liberal, the subject of this article, has no relation to whether you are liberal
conservative, thus not having any effect on the story. Moreover, when other sources were looked
at, it addressed the same issues that Jack Schofield did in this text, such as the ways to displace
the monopoly and the example of Windows and Lotus 1-2-3. This also suggests that the article
has good coverage. Moreover since there were no discrepancies with this source and all the other
sources researched, there was no bias evident in this article. Also, computer weekly, which is
where the article is derived from, it is known for being a site in the United Kingdom related to
information about computers, which is the main idea of this source. Moreover, it is used by IT
intellectuals as well in the United Kingdom, making it legitimate since if IT people who are
knowledgeable about computers are using it, the information presented here must be valid as
well. The audience of the text was definitely for the companies wanting to make a change in the
market, by introducing a change in the computer software’s. Definitely, the article was effective
by giving examples and explaining how to make that change.
"BBC show reveals Amazon 'monopoly'." The Bookseller, 25 Apr. 2014, p. 11. Student
Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A366865020/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=941
a28f9. Accessed 10 Feb. 2019.

Amazon receives over half of Britain’s online retail spend. Furthermore, the business
since its creation 20 years ago has continuously grown. Undoubtedly, Amazon has engraved
itself in everyone's life, with its popularity. It has reached to an extent where one shopper
claimed that no matter what they want to buy, the first place they will check is Amazon. Not only
has it gained popularity with its customers, it also has a tremendous amount of power, There was
a documentary filmed at the Bookseller’s FutureBook Conference and discussed important
information about the company itself. In the conference, Michael Bhaskar claimed that they were
one of the most important companies in the “book world” and the whole entire industry revolves
around them. Though Amazon is something new and exciting, there are certain ramifications that
come along as well. One of the major ramifications, that already is being seen is that Amazon is
becoming such a dominant power in the market industry. The flaw of this is it is resulting in the
company becoming a huge monopoly, which not only affect the businesses but also affect
consumers.
The article "BBC show reveals Amazon 'monopoly'. " is a trustable source with an array
of information about the future and current problems of the monopolization of Amazon. Though
the author’s name is not mentioned, it informs the reader about the publisher the Bookseller. The
Bookseller is renowned for publishing reports based on the economy, which means it is reliable
to trust. Furthermore, the article adheres to the 5-10 year rule, as it was published in 2014. This
demonstrates that the information presented is relevant and accurate. To further confirm the
accuracy of this source, when I searched up information regarding the Monopolization of
Amazon, several sources came up. Some of these sources include the Economist, New York
times, and the Yale Journal. All of these sources above, mention all the issues stated in this
article, showing that the story has not left out significant information in order to the advance the
argument. Furthermore, throughout the article it can be clearly seen the author has done their
best to reduce the amount of bias seen. Even though, most of the article is concentrated around
the power Amazon is gaining, some segments do talk about how Amazon is new and exciting,
and how customers find it convenient to go on Amazon. This shows how he does address some
possible benefits of Amazon. Lastly, this article’s audience was clearly aimed for people in any
industry, who has company, to aware them of the ramifications of Amazon gaining power.
Moreover, he does mention how Amazon could hurt consumers, making them a target audience
as well.

Majerol, Veronica. "Is Amazon taking over the world? Critics say the Internet's popular
'everything store' is turning into a schoolyard bully." New York Times Upfront, 15 Sept.
2014, p. 16+. Student Resources in Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A383048731/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=e65
138d0. Accessed 1 Feb. 2019.

In 2014, Amazon had prevented customers from buying the LEGO Movie and The
Silkworm by J.K Rowling due to an dispute where Amazon was trying to exercise power over
the Warner Home Video and Hachette Book Group. What occurred was Amazon was trying to
sell the products cheaper, so they could make more profit out of it, however the book company
refused. Though disputes like these are common, the main message is Amazon, gaining too
much power. Warner Home Video and Hachette Book Group were not the only people poorly
treated by Amazon’s company’s. Due to the company’s immense power, Publishers and Writers
are “slaves” to them. One of the main reasons the company has so much power is because they
have almost everything a person needs from Kindles to movies and Coca-Cola for cheap prices
and their fast shipping making it convenient for customers. Furthermore, this is resulting in less
competition for Amazon. Since Amazon ha sos much power, they are able to significantly reduce
their prices to the point where other competitors can not compete with them. If this problem
gradually worsens, Amazon could boost their prices so high, due to their being no competition.
The effects of there being low competition can already be seen today, as bookstores have been
closing down due to competition. However, even though amazon is missing their power, the
nature of the economic system does not let one company stay in dominance, recently many other
online companies have came out bringing more competition.
The article "Is Amazon taking over the world? Critics say the Internet's popular
'everything store' is turning into a schoolyard bully." is a trustable source with an array of
information about the future and current problems of the monopolization of Amazon. First of all
the author of the article, Veronica Majerol, is a trustable source, and so is the publisher who
published the article, the New York Times. Veronica Majerol not only is the senior staff editor of
the New York Times, she has had decades of experience working on editing for the top
publishers. Since she is the senior editor, it would not be practical for the source to be filled with
bias and inaccuracies. Moreover, the New York Times, though being left-centered bias, are
generally known for their thoroughness in articles and unbiased/credible opinions in many
articles published. Furthermore, the New York TImes is known for their articles relating to the
economy, which has a direct relation to this article, demonstrating that the article is credible.
Another Major component of the article making it reliable is it adheres to the 5-10 year rule, as it
was written in 2014. This shows the information is accurate, as it does not have information from
several years ago. To further confirm the accuracy of the source, when the amazon’s
monopolization and is searched up several documents come up with similar information
presented in this article. One of them is the “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” from Lina Khan and
the Yale Journal. As the similar information can be seen in other articles, this shows how the
article is accurate. If there was bias, certain information about Amazon would have been taken
out of this article in order to achieve the author’s goal. However, that was not the case.
Furthermore, in the article he did talk about some benefits of Amazon like the cheap prices and
fast shipping which shows he addresses the positives and negatives of this company, clearly
demonstrating that though he has a bias that Amazon has too much power, he does discuss the
benefits the company has for consumers. Lastly, the purpose of the audience was for people
educated on competition policy, monopolies, and especially for companies who could be affected
by the presence of Amazon in the market industry.
Khan, Lina M. “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal - Home, 2017,
www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox. Accessed 1 March 2019.

Amazon has been a monopoly that has collectivized a lot of power in the Market
Industry, however has never been scrutinized by the government. Lina Khan, Author of, “
Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”, brings out the flaws of the antitrust regulations, allowing this to
occur. The definition of Antitrust Laws solely relies on short term interest and consumer welfare.
These change occurred during the 1982 revised merger guidelines, in which these two factors
were emphasized more in contrast to the 1962 merger guidelines. Furthermore, economists only
look at the structure of the company, thinking it controls the “market outcomes” however that is
no the case. According to the Chicago School of thought, concentration levels and firm size
shows the “standalone market forces and technical demands of production” that the economist
fails to shows. In order to reform the definition of the Monopoly, there are two vital things the
government needs to impose. The first is preventing monopolies through promoting competition.
By implementing a “presumption of predation” it prevents companies from producing any items
below the cost. The second method is through vertical integration in which the government needs
to disclose that companies can not buy out places where proccese happen to make, produce, and
deliver a product. This is not even mentioned in the antitrust laws which needs to be changed.
The other methods to control monopolies are though government regulation. Public Utility can
allow government to control networks, which Amazon falls under, and Prophylactic limit which
which limits the involvement of an companies in similar lines of business since it give more
power to the company. Through these methods, the government can successfully reduce the
amount of monopolies in today’s society.
The Article written by Lina Khan is undoubtedly a trustable source. The article is
published by the Yale Law Journal which is reputable for their known reviews written by
professionals in the legal field. Furthermore, the author, Lina Khan, is a renowned antitrust and
coepitton policy specialist who works at Yale and is known for her ideas to prevent monopolies
across the United States. Furthermore, though it can be seen that the author dislikes monopoly
through her specialty, throughout the writing she does address all the opposing viewpoints like
the Economists view, the Robert Patman Act, and view of critics on several viewpoints showing
that though she is against monopolies, she does address the other side’s arguments. Additionally,
the article was written in 2017, following the 5-10 year old. Furthermore, when the information
that Lina Khan wrote about was searched up hundreds of other articles talked about Amazons
concentration of power, the flaws in the merger system, and the ways in which monopolies were
assessed. Also, the audience of this article was for antitrust and competition policy specialists,
and government officials. Both of these groups want to know how to reform the antitrust process
in order to prevent monopolies in their society, which was also the purpose of this article.
Definitely, this article purpose was effective as it produced new ideas and possible solutions to
specialists and the government about reducing monopolies.