Corporations

OP

objectivism

Without corporations we wouldn't have all the material comforts we have today. They spread wealth, give jobs, provide goods and choice etc. They are definately a force for good, some may wish to return to a Roussean noble savage era but i like comforts, i also like the fact that people can put their ideas into action without restriction, it shows respect for the mind and so reason and reason of course is man's tool for survival. Thus they reaffirm the importance of life. If they were bad people would not buy from them.

Would you say that an evaluation of corporations could really be this clear cut?

What about the social implications of the Ford vs. Dodge ruling? Does this not provide the slightest bit of concern to you?

Reply 4

Tonight Matthew

Would you say that an evaluation of corporations could really be this clear cut?

What about the social implications of the Ford vs. Dodge ruling? Does this not provide the slightest bit of concern to you?

Corporations are on the whole good in a pure capitalist system. Capitalism prevents monopolies and punishes corruption as people are free to take their money elsewhere unlike under socialism. Do you deny the points i make in my post and specifically why? Corporations do best when they are in pure capitalist economies, something which does not exist today.

Over the past 100 years more corportions have emerged and with it more wealth and better standards of living. Is this just a coincidence?

Reply 5

OP

objectivism

Corporations are on the whole good in a pure capitalist system. Capitalism prevents monopolies and punishes corruption as people are free to take their money elsewhere unlike under socialism. Do you deny the points i make in my post and specifically why? Corporations do best when they are in pure capitalist economies, something which does not exist today.

Over the past 100 years more corportions have emerged and with it more wealth and better standards of living. Is this just a coincidence?

I haven't necessarily denied anything you've said. Please answer my question directly though:

What about the social implications of the Ford vs. Dodge ruling? Does this not provide the slightest bit of concern to you?

Reply 6

What about the social implications of the Ford vs. Dodge ruling? Does this not provide the slightest bit of concern to you?

This ruling was right. Corporations have responsibilties to their shareholders the people who foot the bill, not the whims of one person who wants to be chartiable with OTHERS money. The best way corporations help society is by investing profits back in, not giving hand outs. With investment comes expansion, more wealth, more jobs, a trickle down effect, more need for other products and so expansion in other industries.

Reply 7

OP

objectivism

This ruling was right. Corporations have responsibilties to their shareholders

Agreed. But is it right that they have responsibilities to their shareholders above everything else, no matter what the effects of it are on the wider world? If for example a corporation could make large quantities of money by laying off 70% of the workforce where you live, resulting in huge problems for your local community, they would be legally obliged to do so.

This is what makes me somewhat skeptical.

Reply 8

Agreed. But is it right that they have responsibilities to their shareholders above everything else, no matter what the effects of it are on the wider world? If for example a corporation could make large quantities of money by laying off 70% of the workforce where you live, resulting in huge problems for your local community, they would be legally obliged to do so.

They must always do what is best for their shareholders for they are the one's making the corporation employ people in the first place. They are the one's who make it all possible ultimately.

If 70% of the workforce is laid off than this is sad but no one has a duty to pay for someone else to have a job. They did not go into business to give people jobs but to make money. To take their money but than misuse it in this way would be deceitiful.

No one has a right to a job, but they do have a right to see their money go on what they invested in.

Under the logic of your thinking we would never have progressed. We would have kept inefficeint industries going. The result would be people would not be making a profit so all shareholds would withdraw whic would mean ALL empoyees would lose their jobs.

New industries emerege, for example 100 yrs ago 80% of Swedes worked on the land, now its not even in double figures, but is there mass unemployment? No because new industries emerge.

Reply 9

KizD

12

objectivism hit the nail on the head, I'm a strong believer in the free market. Anyway what alternatives do we have? Hope you're not going to say ~~communism~~ socialism

Reply 10

OP

objectivism

They must always do what is best for their shareholders for they are the one's making the corporation employ people in the first place. They are the one's who make it all possible ultimately.

If 70% of the workforce is laid off than this is sad but no one has a duty to pay for someone else to have a job. They did not go into business to give people jobs but to make money. To take their money but than misuse it in this way would be deceitiful.

No one has a right to a job, but they do have a right to see their money go on what they invested in.

Under the logic of your thinking we would never have progressed. We would have kept inefficeint industries going. The result would be people would not be making a profit so all shareholds would withdraw whic would mean ALL empoyees would lose their jobs.

New industries emerege, for example 100 yrs ago 80% of Swedes worked on the land, now its not even in double figures, but is there mass unemployment? No because new industries emerge.

I have no "logic" particularly, actually, I was just giving an example. Let me put another example to you:

If, say BP, find that drilling in the Arctic will be profitable to their shareholders, they are legally obliged to do so, by Ford vs. Dodge, as far as I understand. Now what about the fact that this would destroy the way of life of the Gwich'in Nation people, a way of life that has been theirs for 20,000 years? Is it right that this should be of no concern to BP?

Reply 11

OP

kizdesai

objectivism hit the nail on the head, I'm a strong believer in the free market. Anyway what alternatives do we have? Hope you're not going to say ~~communism~~ socialism

I'm not suggesting abolishing corporations. I'm suggesting that the rules that they are obliged to play by may not be able to sit side by side with things I consider to be more precious than the bank balances of shareholders.

The overtures, on the surface at least, that corporations themselves make would tend to support my position.

Reply 12

Beekeeper

13

With the free market, the consumer is king. I don't see why some people have such problems with it.
The anti-tesco protests piss me off more than anything else.

Reply 13

OP

Beekeeper

With the free market, the consumer is king. I don't see why some people have such problems with it.

From what I've gathered, the problem with this idea is that the consumers themselves are not the ones who normally suffer from the decisions corporations make, thus why would they care if they're getting their shoes or whatever for a bit cheaper?

It's not quite the two way relationship you make out.

Reply 14

Bismarck

13

Do a google for "comparative advantage".

Reply 15

Tonight Matthew

I have no "logic" particularly, actually, I was just giving an example. Let me put another example to you:

If, say BP, find that drilling in the Arctic will be profitable to their shareholders, they are legally obliged to do so, by Ford vs. Dodge, as far as I understand. Now what about the fact that this would destroy the way of life of the Gwich'in Nation people, a way of life that has been theirs for 20,000 years? Is it right that this should be of no concern to BP?

You don't address any of my points but rather you have now changed the goalposts, no longer it is employees its the gwich'in people. Do they own the land? If yes than without their permission BP may not do anything. If BP owns the land than yes they may morally do so in my opinion. No one has a right to resrct the freedom of another because they fear their culture will not survive. Cultures are alot stronger than you think, look at the Estonians after the fall of the USSR (their language had been made illegal but it is still widespread today).

Reply 16

OP

objectivism

You don't address any of my points but rather you have now changed the goalposts, no longer it is employees its the gwich'in people.

What do you mean, "you have now changed the goalposts"? I didn't do that whatsoever, the question was always about the relationship between duty to shareholders and duty to the world as a whole (including the Gwich'in Nation), morally speaking.

Fair enough, if you think it's moral. I'm not so convinced. I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

Reply 17

What do you mean, "you have now changed the goalposts"? I didn't do that whatsoever, the question was always about the relationship between duty to shareholders and duty to the world as a whole (including the Gwich'in Nation), morally speaking.

I dealt with the employees example but you did not counter my points you merely changed the example (moved the goalposts).

Fair enough, if you think it's moral. I'm not so convinced. I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

Why do you think this? What is your reasoning?

Reply 18

OP

Bismarck

Do a google for "comparative advantage".

I'm not sure if I'm missing something. Can you apply comparitive advantage to the example of BP / Gwich'in Nation to illustrate it to me?

Reply 19

OP