Forum Post: Corporate Greed
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 12:40 p.m. EST by armchairecon
(138)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm not sure what people think when they think 'corporate greed', but the sole GOAL of a corporation is to make money for their shareholders (they are legally obligated to do it). So when you say, corporate greed, its almost like.. good they are doing their job.
If you were going to say, they are short sighted by always focusing on quarterly earnings, and making decisions based on 3 month performance (rather than long term outlook) then yes, i agree that is wrong.
for example: if i am running a company, and i see that my product is no longer in demand in the future, atleast for the next severaly years... I will reduce my manufacturing (ie: possibily laying off factory workers, or asking for everyone to reduce hours to get through this time) and increasing my R&D (ie: hiring researchers). Legally, I HAVE to do what is in the best interest of shareholders.
Can you fault me for doing that?
Imagine these two situations: if I run your company, you expect me to make the best decisions for they company, i wouldn't keep 40% of the labor force on my payroll to sit around and twiddle their thumbs.. thats not my job (ie: thats what unemployment insurance is for) )
In the same situation, you are now not the owner of the company but the factory worker: will you be willing to get a 40% reduction in salary to not get laid off?
For the math heads out there: the expected return for the factory workers is actually higher if people were laid off (ie: situation 1 total income=60% of previuos income +40% on unemployment, vs. situation 2 total income = 60% of previous income)
Exactly, which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves at $500 apiece. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself or another you'd like to draft – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
There are plenty of US companies that are employee owned and that are extremely successful and these companies tend to follow more humane principles than those of publically traded corporations. By going public and then being a slave to the shareholders most corporations then lose their humanity. Wall Street creates the environment for the worst evil greed to breed.
The structure of the company is not the point.. (if i owned a small business, the shareholder is me, and i would say i want to act in my own best interest) If I didn't need something I would get rid of it.. managing risk is how a business owner/manager becomes successful.
Companies =! humanity
I am sorry for you if you believe that making larger profits at any expense is alright. I think that's the root of the downfall of the US. Yes, Humanity and Ethical Responsibility should matter. The structure of the company can create and environment for greed and abuse of others.
I make decisions based on long term outlook. If i had a valuable employee, i would keep them around regardless. Also, making hiring/firing decisions have nothing to do with ethical responsibility nor humanity. If I wanted to save humanity, i could use that extra 40k and buy 20k mosquito nets and distribute them in africa saving thousands of lives from malaria and dengue fever.
The structure of the company isnt what creates greed, it is human nature. Ie: in a sales company, there is pressure for salesman to close deals and earn commissions... some may decide to take shortcuts to earn more money.. is it the company's fault that the salesman got greedy and decided to take short cuts while other sales people did not?
Greed is designed in. It can be designed out. By law, corporations are like sociopaths.
If you own the whole company, as an individual, the company will be a lot like you. I've seen the influence of top personalities on organizations. It can be good.
But the structure of company does matter. By law, an incorporated company is responsible only to produce profits. There are rare exceptions, like co-ops. There are efforts to develop new laws so that corporations are responsible to the community, their employees, the environment, etc. One model is called a benefit corporation.
Greed is designed in. It can be designed out.
Exactly. Corruption is inherent when capitalism and democracy exist concurrently. Money=power=corruption The only solution is to remove money from the system thus equalizing all. The truth is that society is afraid of true equality.
and read this too: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?source=patrick.net&op=1
read this: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6470?source=patrick.net
Basically I see the discussion boils down to: do we blame corporations for buying politicians or do we blame politicians for being bought? We can blame them both, but if we want change, it has to start with our government.
http://www.JeffBlock2012.com
If the message is money influencing politics (coming from unions, religion, etc.. not just corporations), then i agree. But it seems like no one can agree on a message. Rather OWS seems like a stage for anyone with an opinion to voice it and thus becoming just noise.
Dude, are you serious? You've been ranting and raving about your fairly marginal, unpopular libertarian views in every thread I've looked at. If OWS is just becoming noise you're partially responsible. You don't seem the least bit willing to try to find common ground with people of other political ideologies even though many OWS folks seem very willing to try to find common ground with you. You're trying to use OWS as a stage for your own opinion and that's what's making the noise. Try talking with people instead of at them.
and i still havent figured out why personal accountability is unpopular
those are discussions.. on discussion forums. where people discuss their opinions/viewpoints and why they agree or disagree.
im not sure what you mean by talking at them vs. with them, but ive responded to most of the responses to me (ie: encouraging discussion).. i dont just post something and ditch the conversation (my impression of a one sided conversation or talking 'at' someone)
No, all your responses have been pretty much telling people they're wrong without explaining why and without any apparent willingness to compromise your own ideological commitments. Then you go on about how OWS is becoming a giant waste of time, presumably because so few people are automatically agreeing with everything you say.
What would you like to see come out of OWS? Is there anything about your ideology you're willing to compromise? Or is making OWS a strictly libertarian affair the only way to get you on board?