It didn’t *clear * anything up for me, but it sure did *confirm * something. If you know what I mean. . .
The sad thing is that there is a very good argument to be made about the serious problems of politicians and business getting in bed together. Unfortunately, that argument isn’t being made in this thread…
There’s interesting things to be said about how a business’s directors are beholded to shareholders to earn as much money as possible, and how this perversely incentivizes unethical or illegal behavior, along with accounting trickery like we’ve seen in Enron or Worldcom. The problem is that Scott Plaid isn’t aware of them.
List of things done by Bill Gates (The Richest Man in the World (on paper)) has done:
- Donated amazingly large quantities of money to charity
- Yelled at GW Bush for putting limits on the number of brilliant non-American researchers, engineers, and students allowed into the country.
- Got married and had kids.
- Employed/employs tens of thousands of people around the world at very good salaries. And possibly has created the most millionaires of any company (certainly a lot.)
- After a unspectacular start with the Quick and Dirty Operating System, once he had a secure foundation for his company, created hundreds of research teams investigating new and cool technologies–many of which have no immediate or obvious practicality.
- Started many more companies–many dealing with furthering purely scientific research (I have heard.)
- Ruthlessly fought within various technology markets and totally annihilated all opposition in a good percentage of them.
- Done his best to walk the tightrope between doing well for his business and employees and yet follow the orders of various courts to allow competition to grow back in the areas he has overtaken.
Here is a list of the Fortune 500 (2003.) While I am not in-the-know, I can’t say that I know of any nefarious news about any of them.
Gas companies…maybe some hinkiness, there.
McDonalds “supersizes” us
The Gap has given us an endless supply of boring clothes
Toys-R-Us, eeeevvvviiiiillllllllllllll
Nike! Yeah, Douglas Adams told us all about you! (Oh wait, no, it’s the knock-off Nkes that you get at Payless Shoe Source that wear out in two days…)
Gilette! Damn you! Mankind was given a beard by GOD!!!
“Smurfit-Stone Container Corp” <- Oh my (the Smurfs will soon attack)
Land O’Lakes Inc, yeah, you know they’re just buttering us up
Barnes & Noble Inc…c’mon, you know there’s a catch
Harley-Davidson Inc.–Hell’s Angels!
Caesars Entertainment, Las Vegas <- Alright here’s one that might really be a tad fishy
Starbucks Corp–Poisoning us!
Qualcomm Inc.–Well…on my personal underwhelmed list
Hilton Hotels–Taken advantage of all those non-English speaking Latino ladies who otherwise could have perfectly decent jobs at…McDonalds!
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc–One wonders what the “Beyond” part refers to…
Omnicare Inc <- Now that’s a perfect Hollywood Evil Corporation[sup]TM[/sup] name. They must be doing something nefarious yup
Personally, I have met several hundred CEOs, and I can tell you with complete certainty that the ratio of A-holes to really nice people does not change by income. Most people go to their job, try and make stuff for other people that will be appreciated, and put food in their kids mouth. And most CEOs just go to their job, try and make stuff for other people that will be appreciated, put food in their own and all of their employees/investors/stock holders’ kids mouths. Certainly they have to on the occasion put some mom-and-pop and small businesses out of business, but they have to do that because society as a whole demands that they do this. And the reason that society wants them to do that is because 1) Large corporations provide more security for their employees, and so while the mom-and-pop lose out, several more people gain, and 2) They can bring better and cheaper products to the people, paving the way towards more and greater accomplishments by mankind that just can’t be achieved with the same amount of probability or output rate by small companies.
Perhaps, as said, most CEOs aren’t A-holes and don’t do anything nefarious. Some are, however, run by A-holes and they do do their A-holing.
However, I’ve always pretty much figured that the voters give the politician his job, and the companies give him his summer home. In order for him to proceed on successfully, he has to keep both of those parties happy. And probably, trying to keep both sides happy is the best answer as, companies do need to be policed just as much as people do, but they can’t be ruled by the fickleness of public opinion or the public really just loses out.
This is assuming of course, a fully functioning and aggressive mass media exists…like those evil people over at Reuters and AP.
Japan lacks this, and even so is still not an awful place in most ways (except for sexism–which is a societal issue and not really connected to corporations.)
I briefly considered making this point on **Scott Plaid’s ** behalf, as sort of a good-will gesture, but I lost interest in doing so when he surrendered. I had envisioned this thread as his opportunity to advance a more nuanced version of his blanket statement of the original thread, along the lines you suggest.
At which point the inventor quits, goes to a better company, or goes to a bank or the government and gets a loan to start his own company. People putting up with unfair and dishonest treatment by their corporation is an issue of schooling, and why I highly advocate young-age schooling that enforces individual worth and thought patterns instead of militaristic, group-think or rote styles. People being willing to work for such companies is what causes issues–the ass at the top is just the candle on the cake. And this why when schooling in the US was not a modern-day liberal arts style system, such a heavy-handed approach as unions was required. But these days, when a company gets taken over by some blowhard, most of the people leave and the purchased company becomes little more than an empty shell.
However, as most inventors are salaried employees creating better piping for a CPU or such (i.e. where their invention is only a very small part of all the total inventiveness that is going into the end product), and where their entire job description is to invent and hand stuff over to the company–I’m doubting that 99% of them feel cheated when given a bonus for submitting a patent. But more-so, I am wondering how exactly the company even can screw them out of their share? Not to mention, that most inventors are probably in it for inventing, and probably would much more prefer that someone else has to be the shrewd one and see to it that he and everyone else get their salaries continuously for years on end.
See this is the problem in business today. Too much of this self empowerment motivational speaker feel good bullshit. Everyone is taught to think that they are a special unique snowflake. We spend so much time stroking employees egos that now all of a sudden we all want more money than we are worth, more free time than we need, more responsibility than we are ready for.
The fact of the matter is that not everyone grows up to be a CEO or high powered lawyer. Mostly what society needs is worker bees. People who just do one little mundane job. Problem is that no one wants to be a worker bee.
This anti-corporate stuff is bullshit too. Companies create jobs and provide goods and services. Sure there are plenty of assholes working for companies. There are plenty of assholes period.
Anyhow, it’s idiotic and simplistic to view something so complex in such black and white terms as “good” or “evil”. I’m curious to see how this thread progresses.
It would also be good to quote Lord Acton correctly:
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Actually it wouldn’t, unless of course you have some actual data to prove your point. Hint: your personal opinion is not data.
No, just because it is a prejudice doesn’t mean it can not possibly be justified. I fully plan to bring up a list of major companies, then, see if I can
substantiate my feelings. However, that will be tomorrow. I can not pull up lists all times of the day and night. I must log off sometime. I logged on briefly to check back on the RPG thread, and I will give this topic my full attention tomorrow.
The (2003) Fortune 500 list of corporations is midway through my first post.*
- Being helpful, not sardonic
Thank you. As I said, I will be on only a little while, tonight, and in my rush to look over things, I skipped over this.
It might be more accurate to state that “big business” like any big, powerful institution will tend to behave in a way that is intended to ensure it’s own continued survival. This survival will often come at the expense of competitors, the environment, even it’s own employees and customers given the right circumstance.
But don’t forget, that business’s survival represents people’s livelihood. Usually normal people who perfom such evil deeds as process orders, run the finance reports, track payroll. You know…evil stuff.
I think the dirty liberal hippy camp often forgets that. Since they seem to not have real jobs, they assume everyone working in a big company is some kind of suit-wearing meglomaniacal Dilbert stereotype I suppose.
Hey! We only sacrifice a lost child to Xenu once a month now!
Peter Gryffith: AAAAAAAAAH- oh, here are the coffee mugs.
I write programs for 40-50 hours a week. Is that a real job?
So you’re a dirty liberal hippy, eh?
You bet. I worked up quite a sweat earlier and haven’t showered yet.
msmith537 is casting a wider net that the literal meaning of his words would indicate. Since I do not believe that simply providing a livlihood for employees does not automatically make a corporation good, I am certain that I am caught in that net.
That might have been a problem in business ten or fifteen years ago, but that kind of stuff has been out of fashion for some time now. There’s not one tenth the amount of silliness like that in the business world now as there used to be.
Maybe you aren’t in the business world, but we stopped paying for most of that crappola ages ago.