If ethics and morality are at counter purpose to corporations,they are fundamentally flawed and will conflict with the society it serves.
One, who says ethics and morality are at “counter purpose” to corporations? I agree that corporations should not steal or defraud people. There are laws against that. What other kind of morality do you want them to have?
Two, what “society” are they “serving”? Corporations cater to their customers and potential customers. They should be looking out for ways to deliver goods and services for the best price to their customers. If they do that, they are doing a very good thing for their customers. What obligation do they have beyond that?
True, there is a problem with externality in some areas. I do think there is a role for government to play in helping companies internalize these externalities. Unfortunately the way government regulates pollution isn’t all that efficient. Furthermore, a lot of government policy helps to create the very externalities that cause problems (timber management on government land, for instance).
In general, though, I don’t think these externalities are that big of a deal. Most businesses do not obtain profits because they are getting their externalities reduced by the government. It’s not as if Microsoft is profitable because it’s allowed to pollute and cause cancer.
Energy companies are a different story though.They are allowed to pollute and cause cancer , both here and abroad.
There are trade offs in everything. That’s life. Those same energy companies are also ‘allowed’ to sell you that cheap energy you are using to power the computer so you can type your interesting replies.
It’s called ‘the real world’ planet. Let’s see some historical examples, ehe?
You to…let’s see some examples. You folks seem to think it’s a slam dunk but I’ve seen nothing but rolling eyes and dismissal. How about backing it up with some cites…this being GD and all.
-XT
What the heck is your point? Who cares what companies were big in 1970 and what does that have to do with today’s economy? My point is that most sectors of the economy are being owned by a smaller group of companies. For those who dispute this, my challenge is to start giving examples where this isn’t the case. For everyone you list, I’ll be able to name three counter-examples. I’ll even throw in nine to get things rolling: airlines, cable networks, computer operating systems, department stores, fast food restaurants, funeral services, hospitals, newspapers, and radio stations.
And that’s where you’re wrong. If you own 90% of the market, you control the market. You can dictate terms to your suppliers and tell them they’re going to give you preferential treatment. And if they don’t comply, they can give up on 90% of the market and try to make a living selling to the other 10% - what decision do you think they’ll make? So you order your suppliers to give you a ten percent discount and also tell them they can’t give any discount to any other customers. You can now buy you’re products 10% cheaper and sell it 5% cheaper than anyone else. And this isn’t just a theory - it’s exactly the kind of business practices used by companies like Microsoft and WalMart.
Which is why companies such as Apple and OS’s like Redhat have been ground down beneath the jackboots of Microsoft. Oh…wait…
Do you happen to know what percentage of the market MS and WM control by chance? And, has this percentage increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last decade? Why? Do you expect it to remain unchanged, rise or fall in the NEXT decade? Why?
-XT
Wow. You really think that history doesn’t provide a good framework by which to view the present? My point is that looking at historic business trends, it’s pretty certain that the companies which are huge today will not be huge in twenty years.
Again, looking at a snapshot in time illustrates very little. Look at how these companies fare over time. They may control a large part of the market for a year or five, but their share usually rises and falls. If Marxism were correct, these companies would consolidate their power and never relinquish it. But that’s not how the economy works.
Again, if no one is forcing consumers to buy from you, then who cares if you control 90% or even 100% of the market? Again, the free market is not about an outcome, it’s about a process. If one company is doing such a good job giving consumers what they want, then why is that a bad thing? Suppliers don’t have a right to stay in business if they aren’t giving their customers what they want. If suppliers are squeezed this way, consumers benefit. Why is that a bad thing? Wal Mart has succeeded because it offers the goods and services that people want at a price they can’t find anywhere else. That is great for the proletariat.
But take a look at the hypothetical postscarcity world, a world where everyone has a Star Trek style replicator on their desk and can make anything they like.
Is it fair to imagine that such a world is communist? Does the government own the means of production? No, the means of production is in private hands. Capitalism doesn’t mean that a few fatcats own the factories, it means that the factories are owned privately. A replicator on every desk isn’t communism. Nor will it do away with scarcity, because there will still be things that the replicator can’t do.
It won’t be able to make land, for instance. That replicator might be able to make you a house, but it won’t be able to put that house in downtown Manhattan. And so on. There will still be scarce goods, and there’s no reason to imagine that the remaining scarce goods would be more fairly distributed by a command and control Marxist system than by market forces.
A government program that hands out free replicators on demand (they have replicators that do nothing but build new replicators) isn’t communism, what would be communism would be the idea that all replicators are community property, and if you want any good you’d go to the community replicator and ask for it. Allowing individuals to own their own replicator would be antithetical to communism.
Considering that there is an independently owned taqueria on almost every street corner in commercial districts in Silicon Valley, I’m going to ask for some proof that fast food restaurants are becoming a monopoly. Same with hospitals. There are dozens and dozens of independent clinics and doctors in my area. I think you are going to have to narrowly defined the term “hospital” in order to prove your point. Moving on to radio stations, that’s also an artificial definition of a “market” since podcasting and the internet compete for ears in the same market.
Also, you need to remember that for many goods and services, it’s a global marketplace. Even if things are consolidating in the US, there are European, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, etc. companies competing. Just look at the PC market. Or cars. Korea has only recently started selling cars in the US, and China will be next.
Yeah, fewer and fewer cable networks. Maybe someday they’ll all merge and we’ll be down to three networks that own everything. Then we can look back at the 60s and be envious of the multitude of choices they had. :rolleyes:
And OSs. When I was growing up you had the choice of DOS or Apple. Now we’re down to Windows, MacOS and Linux.
Rebuttal–“The Moon landings were STAGED…MAN! By the GOVERNMENT…MAN! It’s all a CONSPIRACY…by THE MAN…MAN!”
And millions believe it.
The same millions who might be targeted by Communist agitprop. :rolleyes:
RATUBOLA: Situs Slot Online 303 Jackpot Gacor Mudah Menang 2022 This is what Disney owns. No fear.
Um…is your point that Disney is a monopoly? Or…well, do you have a point with that drive by link?
-XT
Top down communism is dead. I’m not sure how state sponsored communism even happened, it seems somewhat anathema to the ideals of communism.
Bottom up communism is still possible and may even be likely. If it does happen, it will likely be from small communes being successful enough that they get copied in other places. Probably it’s not possible to have communistic cities. I read a study once about humans having some innate psychological limit to the number of people they can consider to really be part of their community. So communes would probably work best as communities of up to whatever that maximum number of people is, each community with some kind of distance or barrier to separate them.
But yeah, ironically, the most successful communism will likely arise with a sort of capitalistic or natural selection sort of way, starting out small and growing only when it become viable, rather than being overly planned out.
Communism is a wonderful system that works very well…
…for a family unit. Beyond that, not so much.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read the book, so I can’t really dispute you. Anyway, I think that communism – as I understand it – may make a comeback.
I don’t really understand that. Slavery has been abolished, at least in the U.S. Are you saying that Marx predicted a future in which people would give away their services for free?
How did those people get those replicators?
Let’s suppose that Microsoft invents the replicator. Bill Gates can either (a) sell replicators; (b) sell the products of replicators; or (c) sell limited function replicators that don’t let you make more replicators.
Which do you think he would choose? (a) is right out – it busts his monopoly right out of the blocks. (c) is better, but (b) is the best for him. (a) is best for society, assuming that replicators are set up so they can’t be put to harmful uses.
For me, communism means taking the choice out of Bill’s hands.
Depends how they got there.
That’s true. It’s interesting to wonder about what will be scarce in the future. Arguably, much of the value that comes from living in Manhattan is that you are very close to other people who live in Manhattan. In the future, it may be possible to interact with people, just like you are face to face, except that you are far away from eachother. In such a future, Manhattan real estate may command less of a premium.
But that doesn’t have much to do with communism.
I disagree, since owning a replicator is arguably more like downloading a song than owning some private piece of machinery.
That’s your bourgeosie mind for you.
Yes. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. You would labor without pay for your labor and you would receive what you need from the labor of others.