Agreed, and just to keep away some of the sillier sweaping declarations of good and evil that can ever be made: A Link.
Don’t have one for where stupidity officially goes grey.
I think this more nuanced view is a much better description of the business world. I’m neither pro- nor anti-business, and I know a lot of people fall into one of those silly “camps”, and it bugs me. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the business climate in the United States at least encourages companies to do things that are not in the public interest, and often not in the business’s interests either, but rather in the short-term interest of the executives. I think far too little is done to regulate certain industries. But I also recognize that nothing resembling the modern world - which, in some ways, I find pretty swell - could exist without large corporations.
This sort of “corporations are evil” rhetoric irritates me because I think it’s simplistic, and I think it’s a distraction from the potential solutions to the problems that exist. It’s not rational to expect corporations to act against their own interests, especially when shareholders can easily punish executives who do so. And corporations wield too much power, but this is a political and economic issue; it’s silly to allow corporations that power and get angry at them for using it.
An informed, educated populace that refused to allow politicians to get into bed with corporate lobbyists would solve most of these problems, though I don’t know how that could be achieved (it seems to exist in some other countries, though.) But to reward executives for making poor decisions and then become shocked when a house of cards like Enron falls is the height of foolishness.
Ah, my mistake. See, my understanding was that the word “prejudice” meant “an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or *without knowledge * or examination of the facts”; or perhaps “a preconceived preference or idea”.
Good luck finding enough facts to justify your preconceptions. Perhaps later we can discuss what would be a statistically significant level of “evilness” sufficient to justify your feelings.
Or maybe we could find a way to agree that business, in and of itself, is neither evil nor virtuous; that the moral value of big-B “Business” is measured by the way it is conducted; and that governments can be judged based on the extent to which they balance the needs of business against other needs such as the environment, taxation, property rights etc.
As others have observed in this thread, there is the germ of a valid idea in your stance, but you jeapordize its realization when you paint with an industrial-sized broad brush.
Perhaps, but first, I need to take care of the pitting going on right now. As for painting with a broad brush, in a thread I am not proud of, when I first started out here, I argued a certain point involving a similarly large brush. I made no friends in that thread. However, it ended with people agreeing I was correct, in a impractical, doesn’t work in the real world kind of way. A real pyretic victory. 
However, it emphasizes that I am not one to state opinions I do not believe I can not back up.
Keep in mind that every thread is unique; what worked in one thread will not necessarily work in another. You need to adjust your tactics to the situation in which you find yourself. Don’t assume that what worked in one thread is appropriate in another.
Nobody doubts that you *believe * what you say. What we often doubt is that you can back up what you believe. The broader your brush, the more difficult time you’ll have defending your assertions. Line up your facts first, and stick to the points you can defend with 'em, is all I’m saying.
The problem with business is the mindset of the average American. Most people equate being rich or doing well at business with being righteous. Like Ross Perot: He’d make a good president because he’s a billionaire. I never understood this. Most CEO’s are bunch of greedy bastards who think that we, the normal Joes of the world, need to bow down to them because they have money. They think that they should pay less taxes even though their “capital” is taking advantage of society infrastructure more than we possibly could.
But this brings up a remarkable point. These businessmen who continue to control our government, while eroding our place in society, want us to maintain an attachment to it. They want us the follow the unfair laws that don’t apply to them. They want us the send our sons and daughters to war so that they can have the contracts. This is the most arrogant of the pro-big business position. When you do not give people a stake in society why should they be part of it? Why should I follow the rules?
Bill Gates has enjoyed the wealth that our society provides. His workers who are trained by our education system. Educated customers require computers. Why shouldn’t he give something back when he has benefited so much from what our country has to offer.
Sure the businessman has the right to mindlessly accumulate money. He has the right to be greedy with it and pass it on to his lame progeny. But don’t ask me to lavish these people with respect. I’m sorry I have none. Don’t ask the revolutionary when his stake in society has become so small that he disregards its conventions not to rebel.
The “average American” didn’t vote for Perot, otherwise he would’ve won.
Are you aware of how much tax Microsoft as a corporation and Bill Gates as an individual has paid? Are you also aware of how much Bill Gates has given to charity? Please tell us how much he has paid and how much more he should pay.
Scott is currently searching for any factual basis to this statement, you might want to contact him and see if the two of you can’t split the workload.
Tell me one person who doesn’t complain about the taxes he has to pay and how the system is balanced against him unfairly.
Thank you for reminding people of this. 
My email is in my profile. However, so far, I think I have a long haul ahead of me. We will see.
Oop, apologies. Meant it to be facetious–but indeed, many of us do include our email.
And, verifying that facetious is indeed the word I want, we find out our little bit of random knowledge for the day: “One of only two words in English language to contain all 5 vowels in alphabetical order.”
I don’t need to contact him or do any research because whatever I say is not going to make you change your opinion. People change their opinions only after a crisis of some sort. So when a big business takes a giant dump on you some time, you can remember what I said. I would argue that they are taking that dump right now because they are ruining this country in that they have a man in their back pocket as president.
As far as proof goes, I would point to all the CEOs who take pay increases while cutting employee benefits or firing several thousand people. Oh but this never happens right? You’ll give me some spiel about most CEO are nice decent people who donate lots of money to the poor. If I were you I would check to see who is actually giving to charity. Those who give the greatest in proportion to what they have are the poor themselves and the middle-class. I’ll leave you to find all this out for yourself but you can take the easy route and let someone look it up for you.
Big surprise there. Another computer programmer who’s bitter about corporate world. I’m convinced that with the possible exception of the accounting department, IT is the worst job in most companies. Longest hours, most unrealistic project deadlines, no one else in the company knows or cares what you do until their PC crashes. And ironically, it seems to attract the type of people least suited to a corporate environment.
A corporations job is not to “provide goodness”. It is to make money for it’s shareholders. It’s the role of government and society to decide how the corporation is allowed to do that. We live in a capitalist democracy here. If people are willing to sacrifice their environment in order to drive stupid cars or whatever, it’s not the companies fault. It’s the fault of the people who refuse to pressure lawmakers and continue to buy those products.
Because he already does. How many jobs does Microsoft provide - directly and indirectly? How much productivity has been added to the economy because of their products?
The problem with people like you and Scott Plaid is that you are so completely ignorant about how and why big business works. I think you see some kind of James Bond style evil corporation ruthlessly conducting business with lead pipe brutality. You think their power comes from writing politicians big fat checks so they can steal from babies or whatever.
Companies like Microsoft are so powerful because of the benefit they provide to the economy. Their power comes from the fact that politicians want the jobs and businesses they provide and if they don’t provided the proper incentives, someone else will. What do you think the closing of Microsoft would do the the Seattle area?
You folks see thinks in such black and white that no one should take you seriously. It’s like the rainforest. Do you think South American countries are destroying rainforests because they are Evil? It’s because they need resources to bring their populations out of poverty.
I work in consulting so my business world doesn’t get much sillier than that. Maybe there was more 10-15 years ago, I was in school then. But my current employer has spent a lot of money this year on pep-talk bullshit.
And I still believe that the business world is MORE hyped up on bullshit than it’s ever been. Sometimes I can’t even figure out what the heck services a company even offers!
Bitter? I love my work! The day in my mid-thirties that I discovered programming is up among the two or three best days of my life.
Corporations have a responsibility to society just like people do. If not to do good, at least to do no harm. Those who would forgive anything that is done by a corporation because it provides jobs are enabling sociopathy.
Yep. Though I think the main issue for this in the modern world is the globalization of businesses. They may be 100% clean within the US, but (particularly–I would imagine–if the division is run by the locals) other locations in impoverished or corruption-friendly nations may be doing some very nasty stuff. The UN, in my knowledge, has no way to combat this and neither does the US*.
Though, from what I have grokked, even when the working conditions are awful at foreign locations–those conditions are still better than at domestic corporations and the pay wage higher. So the big one becomes the disposal of hazardous materials–and there you just have to wonder who the heck is thinking what.
And m’gosh but this particular post was not created in originality central–channeling an economics discussion between two centrists at 3am in the morning and nothing on TV. (Please rinse and repost every 40 days.) Scott come back!
- Embargo a corporation?
It’s impossible to “do no harm”. There are always winners and losers in business. That’s just how it is. It’s the responsibility of government to set the rules for the playing field on which companies operate.
I think the word you’re looking for is “boycott”.
To play the Scott’s Advocate, and ask some questions:
- As Sage Rat has suggested, the very grand majority of CEOs are perfectly decent people–yet he also reports that the children of many of these are truly non-impressive entities. And in a frightening quantity of cases, these people are able to inherit the company. These are people who were given a mustang for their 16th birthday, had their way funded into Yale, and if they ever worked a day in their life–it was probably for their dad’s (or mom’s) company and their manager would have been too afraid to fire or even criticize anything this person did while employed.
Why should we have any belief that such a person, on becoming CEO will have any view of his employees as anything except for chess pieces–expendable to his desire? Heck, why should we think such a person is worthy or even capable of running a company?
- When a company performs a lay-off they always start from the bottom, removing all the little people who actually make money for the company. Yet, they could remove one high-level position and save the same amount of money as if they had removed several lower positions. How could this not be a case of them pissing on the little guy?
3? (All suggestions welcome.)
You are mistakingly assuming that CEO = company owner. In privately held companies this may often be the case, but very few of the large EEEEEEBVIL corporations are privatel held.
(Still playing Scott’s advocate:) What’s the difference? If you’re the head of a company then you’re like, THE GUY. Certainly you can keep your own heirs in no matter what–connections and so on. I mean, everyone is kissing your ass every day–why shouldn’t they kiss your son’s ass too?
And I was certain that the Ford family is still running Ford for instance. Or Hilton? Certainly there are several… And really anything that is more than 100 employees is starting to get fairly evil–even if not in the top 500. Surely several of those must be eh, private.
Because you often need to treat people in business as if they are expendable chess pieces. Companies don’t lay people off because they are evil or greedy. They lay people off because the business is not making money and they want to keep employing the rest of their staff.
Absolutely wrong. Middle managers and executives get layed off all the time. Executives get fired when they don’t perform.
Anyhow, the “little people at the bottom” don’t “make the money”. Everyone has a job to do and it’s all important for helping the company “make money”.
I agree that there is a lot of stupidity in business. But that must really suck going through your entire career seeing yourself as a little guy just getting pissed on.
But that’s assuming the new CEO even can play chess well. As said, his only qualification is his dad.
Highwayman has stated otherwise. How am I supposed to know which one of you to believe without a cite? *
- Apologies, I know that will be a bugger to look up