Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Protester holding Adbusters' Corporate American Flag at the Second inauguration of George W. Bush in Washington, D.C.. Corporatocracy [a] or corpocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled or influenced by business corporations or corporate interests.
"Corporate governance" may be defined, described or delineated in diverse ways, depending on the writer's purpose. Writers focused on a disciplinary interest or context (such as accounting, finance, law, or management) often adopt narrow definitions that appear purpose-specific.
[44] [45] A common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. [46] [47] Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. [48] These categories are not exclusive.
Anti-competitive behavior refers to actions taken by a business or organization to limit, restrict or eliminate competition in a market, usually in order to gain an unfair advantage or dominate the market. These practices are often considered illegal or unethical and can harm consumers, other businesses and the broader economy.
The court unanimously held that the baseball league's organization meant that there was no commerce between the states taking place, even though teams traveled across state lines to put on the games. That travel was merely incidental to a business which took place in each state. It was subsequently held in 1952 in Toolson v.
The government has tried to avoid having agencies doing commercial activities, by separating out areas that compete with private companies into government-owned companies, for example within road construction. The reason is both to avoid unfair competition, and a wish to have market economy instead of plan economy as much as
A new CEO at the top, and a lot of familiar faces from Musk's circle.
In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."