Corporations Going Too Far?

[studiot]

 

Why I asked for additional examples.

 

 

I think every age has its share of philanthropists and patrons.

 

The level of giving varies as does the nature of the support and the subject supported.

 

eg Sainsbury and the arts

Cadbury and better housing/ workers conditions

Wellcome and medicine

North and exploration records

Nobel and many subjects

Edited August 31, 2014 by studiot

[EdEarl]

I think every age has its share of philanthropists and patrons.

 

The level of giving varies as does the nature of the support and the subject supported.

 

eg Sainsbury and the arts

Cadbury and better housing/ workers conditions

Wellcome and medicine

North and exploration records

Nobel and many subjects

Philanthropists and patrons typically do not redistribute income enough to significantly affect society. To be fair, neither did Buddha and neither can both Gates and Buffet giving away all their billions significantly affect wealth redistribution.

 

I think we've lost the concept of mutual success, where corporations make products and pay their workers enough so they can buy those products, and everyone pays taxes to create infrastructure and programs that help us all. That's the kind of relationship worth paying the military to defend, and the police to protect, and the politicians to represent.

 

Is this just The Tragedy of The Commons being perpetrated by bean counters? Is the middle class income just a common resource they've overused?

 

Would it be all that difficult to start demanding, as consumers/voters/taxpayers, that the corporations we deal with stop skimming so much happiness from our pursuit? We're in this together, which would be easier to see if the CEOs and stockholders took off their greenback-colored glasses and realized that you can't suffocate people and still expect them to be customers.

 

Perhaps your corporation isn't representative of the focus of the OP.

I agree that the powerful "can't suffocate people and still expect them to be customers." On the other hand, I see no major movement to redistribute wealth so that people can be good customers. In other words, the trend at this time is to move as much money and resources as possible to the wealthy and powerful, and prevent the people from having enough to survive and thrive.

[iNow]

I agree that the powerful "can't suffocate people and still expect them to be customers." On the other hand, I see no major movement to redistribute wealth so that people can be good customers.

It may not be happening very quickly or noticeably, but such movements definitely exist. Even the president himself is speaking about it, and so too are countless others (an easy example is Bernie Sanders, whom you even quoted yourself just a few short posts ago).

 

I'm reluctant to call it a movement to redistribute wealth, though. I don't think that's truly what this issue is about. I suggest it's more accurately classified as a movement to bring balance and fairness of opportunity to the citizenry and to ensure a stronger voice to those who cannot add to the weight and power of their votes through contributions from their checkbooks.

Edited August 31, 2014 by iNow

[Ten oz]

Philanthropists and patrons typically do not redistribute income enough to significantly affect society. To be fair, neither did Buddha and neither can both Gates and Buffet giving away all their billions significantly affect wealth redistribution. I agree that the powerful "can't suffocate people and still expect them to be customers." On the other hand, I see no major movement to redistribute wealth so that people can be good customers. In other words, the trend at this time is to move as much money and resources as possible to the wealthy and powerful, and prevent the people from having enough to survive and thrive.

I don't believe wealthy people are purposely suffocating people. I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. As described in my pervious post #17 I think government is letting people down. We have allowed for a business does things better than govt philosophy to become pervasive. Looking out for the good of society is not the responsibility of private enterprise. It is the role of the government and over the last 30yrs here in the states we have abdicated more and more of the public's interest to private business. There are things that only the government can do because there is not a direct monetary reward.

 

The Govt spent billions on R&D to go to the moon and beyond before there was a way to profit from it. Things like GPS, cable television, cell phones, and etc came later as a by product. It was the publics (govt) projects that created those markets and the billionaires it has produced. Same goes for any number of industries. Long before FedEx and UPS became companies the Govt was building the highway infastructure those companies rely on to do business. The govt via the military spent billions on Jet turbine technology without which today any number of business would not exist. Plus those govt jobs tend to be more stable and force business to offer more benefits and better wages to compete for the brain power.

 

It is the government role to create opportunity. The business does it better mantra is stagnating things. There are large projects that no private business will take on. The Government should build a national highspeed rail line, solar powered LED highways, desalination water facilities, spend money researching the bottom of the oceans, put satellites around mars, travel to Europe, etc, etc, etc. Just as no one could have predicted today's use of computers when NASA was using vacuum tubes to calculate moon missions the above projects would spawn any number of new markets for private enterprise to exploit and create millions of new jobs.

 

No democracy should be on hands and knees hoping for the philanthropy of wealthy individuals. Not when we can make our own democratic choices.

[iNow]

What's the direct tie here to whether or not corporations are going too far? Perhaps part of the challenge in addressing the actual topic posed in the OP is that each time it gets raised even otherwise very intelligent people get rapidly side tracked and move the conversation instead to peripheral issues. Squirrel!

[John Cuthber]

"I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. "

I disagree.

A wealthy individual (or corporation) that pays very poor wages is a bad thing but, in dong so they can accumulate more wealth.

[studiot]

 

Philanthropists and patrons typically do not redistribute income enough to significantly affect society.

 

The examples I gave all did change society, although by action and example as much as cash.

 

There were many more.

 

 

So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing.

 

But who made those laws? The rich or the poor?

 

And what if they are breaking them covertly?

 

The rule of law is generally a good thing by surely that must also depend upon the laws themselves being 'good'?

[Phi for All]

And what if they are breaking them covertly?

 

Deregulation and lack of transparency go hand in hand these days, leading to rampant corruption. Wasn't there a financial crisis recently where we found this was true of the banking industry?

[Ten oz]

"I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. "

I disagree.

A wealthy individual (or corporation) that pays very poor wages is a bad thing but, in dong so they can accumulate more wealth.

In democratic countries laws can be passed that prevent "very low wages". That is why I followed "overtly breaking the law" statement with my thoughts about the governments responsibility. On top of the things previously mentioned laws requiring governing taxation, increases in the minimum wage, vacation pay, overtime pay, perternity leave, etc, etc can be required as basic worker rights. Then corporations can seek wealth without it having negative effects.

The reason for a for profit business is profit. Greed is bad but I don't think it can be removed from the profit model. If more can be had than more is generally going to be preferred.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ten oz

[studiot]

 

The reason for a for profit business is profit. Greed is bad but I don't think it can be removed from the profit model. If more can be had than more is generally going to be preferred.

 

 

That is far too simplistic a view IMHO.

 

Try this:

 

A management consultant was employed by a large department store to improve profit.

 

Her study conscluded that the average profit generated per square foot was $1.

However the 10th floor profit was $2 per sq foot.

 

So she recommended that all the rest of the store be converted to selling the 10th floor product.

 

Was she right?

[Ten oz]

That is far too simplistic a view IMHO.

 

Try this:

 

A management consultant was employed by a large department store to improve profit.

 

Her study conscluded that the average profit generated per square foot was $1.

However the 10th floor profit was $2 per sq foot.

 

So she recommended that all the rest of the store be converted to selling the 10th floor product.

 

Was she right?

Hard to say. Does the 10th floor have the same total sq footage and is it selling a product that can handle a greater volume without saturating it's market? Assuming the answer to both questions is yes I imagine most businesses would convert. Unless marketing showed that items sold on other floors were responsible for the departments stores traffic.

Good choice of an example. Many of the department stores I grew up with are dead or dying.

[John Cuthber]

In democratic countries laws can be passed that prevent "very low wages". That is why I followed "overtly breaking the law" statement with my thoughts about the governments responsibility. On top of the things previously mentioned laws requiring governing taxation, increases in the minimum wage, vacation pay, overtime pay, perternity leave, etc, etc can be required as basic worker rights. Then corporations can seek wealth without it having negative effects.

The reason for a for profit business is profit. Greed is bad but I don't think it can be removed from the profit model. If more can be had than more is generally going to be preferred.

As has been pointed out, it only matters if the laws are good.

Here in the UK there is a minimum wage.

But it isn't enough to live on.

So, (almost) anyone who earns it is also on state handouts of some sort.

Which means that the employer can perfectly legally pay starvation wages so he earns a profit (even though, in principle, his business should run at a loss because it can't afford to pay a living wage).

He gets all the cash + status of being a company boss.

The taxpayer gets to pay for that.

But the average tax payer doesn't have enough money to set up a business; you need to be rich to do that.

So it's a way to get money from taxpayers to rich people.

 

It was initially opposed by the Tories, our right wing party, but is now part of their policy.

I wonder why?

 

If the minimum wage is enough to live on, it's a good thing.

If not, it's a subsidy for the rich, at the expense of the middle class.

 

You might ask why we didn't vote them out.

well, it's tricky- all our politicians are Right wing.

At the last election the New Labour party (no longer new; never was Labour) got thrown out.

The two other parties formed a coalition.

Their names are the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Someone needs to get them a dictionary.

 

And I'd like to see a lot more detail before I answered Studiot's question.

In particular, I'd like to know if the top floor was "the boardroom" and so all its profits were paper; or if it was the cafe, and it made all its money from knackered shoppers.

[studiot]

What I didn't tell you before was that the 10th floor was the restaurent.

 

So customers only went to the restaurent because they were in the shop.

 

Remove the other 9 floors (ie the shop) and what do you have?

 

This is actually a real management example from the past, courtesy Stafford Beer.

 

[Ten oz]

@ John Cuthber, you are right. I am looking at it from a perfect world persceptive. In the real world companies use money to manipulate the political system. Rather than overtly breaking laws they buy politicians and have more favorable laws written. Wealthy individuals also own the majority of media and use it to control debate and the issues of the day. They fudge facts and straight up lie in order to convince average people they share common cause when clearly they don't.

[Phi for All]

Wealthy individuals also own the majority of media and use it to control debate and the issues of the day. They fudge facts and straight up lie in order to convince average people they share common cause when clearly they don't.

 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave them the power, and FOX News and The O'Reilly Factor started the same year. The "political pundit" was born, journalism went almost extinct, and informing the public became manipulating the public.

[John Cuthber]

"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave them the power"

Or

In 1996, they gave themselves the power...

[CaptainPanic]

I don't think it's a matter of evil corporations, I think it's a matter of smart people taking advantage of ambivalent voters and a poorly monitored system. But how long can we continue to let these mega-corporations suck the life out of our tax revenue and our purchasing power while still enjoying access to our country's infrastructure and all the benefits that entails?

 

For as long as people are satisfied in their primary needs and have sufficient distraction. I think the ancient Romans called is the concept of bread and games. It works.

I think that (sadly) the wealthy have not pushed it too far yet. They can take more, because in the end, the rest of the population is so distracted that nobody acts.

 

Rather than overtly breaking laws they buy politicians and have more favorable laws written. Wealthy individuals also own the majority of media and use it to control debate and the issues of the day. They fudge facts and straight up lie in order to convince average people they share common cause when clearly they don't.

 

I actually disagree. The debate of the day is indeed chosen by the owner of the tv-station or website. But it is the viewers who choose to watch it. And especially since the rise of the internet, we all actually have a choice.

New large corporations appeared with the rise of the internet. Quite a few actually started off small and relatively poor. Social networks and search engines dominate the list of most popular websites, but news websites also appear frequently. Those news websites are not forced upon anyone. People choose to go there themselves.

Edited September 1, 2014 by CaptainPanic
Fixing a broken sentence.

[studiot]

What you say about indifference rings true.

 

http://blog.avast.com/2014/07/08/tens-of-thousands-of-americans-sell-themselves-online-every-day/?p_pro=1&p_vep=9&p_elm=55&p_var=%252Fpa%252Fen-gb%252Fother%252Fsecurity-report_licensed_90_security-report-news.html&p_ves=0&p_lqa=3&p_lqe=1&p_lsu=12&p_lst=0&p_lex=230&p_lng=en&p_lid=en-gb&p_bld=chr2&p_vbd=2021&p_hid=538e565f-0cbb-4412-be3e-a94f77ef2f2b&p_wei=-1.0&p_ram=1021&p_cpu=-1.0

 

Sorry about the 'ad' at the end of the blog, but it is a not for profit service

Edited September 1, 2014 by studiot

[Ten oz]

I actually disagree. The debate of the day is indeed chosen by the owner of the tv-station or website. But it is the viewers who choose to watch it. And especially since the rise of the internet, we all actually have a choice.

New large corporations appeared with the rise of the internet. Quite a few actually started off small and relatively poor. Social networks and search engines dominate the list of most popular websites, but news websites also appear frequently. Those news websites are not forced upon anyone. People choose to go there themselves.

 

Viewers of media could choose but it requires being educated on the issues and most have abdicated that responsibility to someone else be it a pundit, person on twitter, radio host, or etc. Where I live talking cat videos go viral and get tens of millions of views online while half the country still isnt sure what to believe about evolution or climate change. In a perfect world where people primarily made good choices any number of laws would not neccessary. Why have a minium wage? People could just choose not to work for poor wages and then companies would be forced to pay good wages right? In application it just doesn't work.

 

IMO average people generally look to the middle of a debate as the de facto solution. A compromise. They assume both sides of an issue have merit so the middle must be a good place. It relieves them of having to actually delve too deeply into any of the information. If 97 scientists say climate change is happening and man made but then 3 very vocal and well funded scientists say no it isn't the conclusion becomes that the climate is changing but it isn't clear how much or why, back to viral cat videos. This is how wealthy people create common cause. They inflate false issues and pray upon people's natural tendency for compromise. When that doesn't work they resort to fear tatics. Things like "give us tax cuts or else we will have to lay people off" or "approve this pipe line or else gas prices will go up by X amount".

[CaptainPanic]

Viewers of media could choose but it requires being educated on the issues and most have abdicated that responsibility to someone else be it a pundit, person on twitter, radio host, or etc. Where I live talking cat videos go viral and get tens of millions of views online while half the country still isnt sure what to believe about evolution or climate change. In a perfect world where people primarily made good choices any number of laws would not neccessary. Why have a minium wage? People could just choose not to work for poor wages and then companies would be forced to pay good wages right? In application it just doesn't work.

But corporations and wealthy people do not have an agenda to keep the population dumb. They do not block websites with valuable information. They do however sell advertising space on that cat video, because tens of millions people voluntarily watch that stuff.

 

IMO average people generally look to the middle of a debate as the de facto solution. A compromise. They assume both sides of an issue have merit so the middle must be a good place. It relieves them of having to actually delve too deeply into any of the information. If 97 scientists say climate change is happening and man made but then 3 very vocal and well funded scientists say no it isn't the conclusion becomes that the climate is changing but it isn't clear how much or why, back to viral cat videos. This is how wealthy people create common cause. They inflate false issues and pray upon people's natural tendency for compromise. When that doesn't work they resort to fear tatics. Things like "give us tax cuts or else we will have to lay people off" or "approve this pipe line or else gas prices will go up by X amount".

There you touch upon something that is indeed loathsome: Lobbying and commercially sponsored lies about the climate. But I am not entirely sure that this is the topic of this thread. I think we discuss a far broader problem of a very small wealthy class who get all the money, and take from the middle and poorer classes. It is not the case that all corporations and all wealthy people are constantly lying about the sciences that affect their core-business. As others already said, the large majority operate within the law, and often even within what we think is morally acceptable.

[iNow]

For as long as people are satisfied in their primary needs and have sufficient distraction. I think the ancient Romans called is the concept of bread and games. It works.

I think that (sadly) the wealthy have not pushed it too far yet. They can take more, because in the end, the rest of the population is so distracted that nobody acts.

 

I find myself thinking more of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World wherein it's not some Orwellian doublethink or forced fascism that changes us, but instead the ubiquitous distraction of toys and information and other ways to spend time otherwise spent thinking of existential conundrums that has caused us to relinquish and abdicate our reason and outrage and freedoms.

 

"The dream that all of us could be changed sufficiently so that could awaken from our stupor and act in defense of the planet and science... And demand our governments to be more scientifically aware of the needs and challenges of our planet, but also the promise of the cosmos."

~Ann Druyan discussing the Cosmos remake on Fox and the importance of science, in general

[John Cuthber]

But corporations and wealthy people do not have an agenda to keep the population dumb.

Yes they do, overtly.

Have you seem what the Republicans think of "critical thinking"?

[CaptainPanic]

 

But corporations and wealthy people do not have an agenda to keep the population dumb.

Yes they do, overtly.

Have you seem what the Republicans think of "critical thinking"?

 

All of them? Or just some of them? This thread seems to deal with all of them, and how our economy/world is working, not a subset of particularly immoral republicans.

[Phi for All]

All of them? Or just some of them? This thread seems to deal with all of them, and how our economy/world is working, not a subset of particularly immoral republicans.

 

I didn't want to generalize and accuse all corporations of foul practices, but the worst offenders are some of the biggest corporations, the guys everyone else has to compete with. Many businesses will follow suit just to keep their doors open, especially if it's been made legal through lobbying.

[John Cuthber]

All of them? Or just some of them? This thread seems to deal with all of them, and how our economy/world is working, not a subset of particularly immoral republicans.

I think there's a lot of overlap between "Corporations Going Too Far" together with their senior management and "a subset of particularly immoral republicans.".