I hate when ppl bitterly complain over "greedy corporat

Post Reply New Topic

In game theoretical economics it is they call it irrational rationality.

Since when does the White House have the authority to tell a US company that they can't build a factory in certain states in the United States?

Probably none. However the Federal Government can pressure Boeing by refusing to have any military contracts for purchasing items made in "right to work" States.

ruveyn

Then why is the White House doing it:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt158972.html

Anyways, Boeing now has an upperhand, because using this they can claim in court that they were denied a contract simply over the fact their factory wasn't in an Obama "approved" state and could potentially win the lawsuit over discrimination claims.

My complaint with corporations, specifically American ones, isn't so much just the greed. As blauSamstag pointed out, corporations are profit-seeking entities. It's true, they are beholden to their stockholders to make as much money as possible, even to take profit-maximizing steps that put them in direct conflict with the interests of thousands (or even millions) of individuals. A good example is the healthcare industry. The goal of the company isn't really to give out healthcare to individuals-- it's to maximize profits. It can't be faulted for this; that's just what a corporation does, and anyone who believes that the company exists as an altruistic entity to serve the healthcare needs of people is really just being naïve. Meanwhile, the goal of the individual is basic survival, which includes both health and financial security. The two different interests inherently conflict, because if it had its way, the company would deny paying out any money to anyone, regardless of whether it means suffering or death for the individuals paying into their system.

This brings me to my actual complaint, which is that our political system has essentially endorsed the legal concept, as exemplified by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, that individuals and corporations are equal entities, when they clearly are not. To extend your "wolf" analogy, it's tantamount to a farmer deliberately putting a few wolves in the same pen as all the sheep while under the delusion that both animals are "equal" and have the capacity to coexist peacefully. The wolves cannot be "blamed" for being predators in the mood for lamb chops-- that's just what they are. Of course they both have certain rights-- but the wolves have so many advantages over the sheep that peaceful coexistence is a completely unrealistic expectation. The only way to truly level the playing field and create a system where both entities can mutually coexist is for the government to step in and put some ground rules in place for the corporations-- things like, you know, Transocean executives don't get a big bonus for a so-called "exemplary safety record during the fiscal year of 2010" after losing the lives of 11 rig workers, spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, and completely devastating the local environment and fishing industry. It's not really the greed that angers me, it's the complete lack of accountability for incompetence, and the insane Randian delusion that companies will self-regulate-- that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, just leave them alone, and the invisible hand of the free market will take care of everything. We've tried Reaganomics for just about 30 years now, and it doesn't work. Corporations don't "trickle down" wealth-- and to believe otherwise is to be in total denial of the fundamental nature of what a corporation is and does.

And then, of course, we haven't even yet breached the reality that, when a corporation treats the interests of large masses of people as expendable, it has a bigger negative effect on the nation as a whole. It causes all sorts of systemic problems, such as higher unemployment rates due to large numbers of valuable jobs being outsourced to companies where the labor is cheaper. In the long run, the cycle initated by allowing the wolves to run rampant among the sheep not only affects individual sheep, but the pasture and farm as a whole. Is it really too much to ask that the government should serve its intended function as protectors of the people and the nation, and hold companies accountable for whatever pain and suffering they cause in the name of maximizing profit?

Agreed. Skafather posted a Chomsky appearance a few hours ago in which he spoke briefly about the frightening notion of "corporate personhood".

Oh gawd, let's not get into Adam Smith....

Nope, and that's why the carrot and stick model is outdated. I have the book "Drive" by Daniel H. Pink. It explains how the carrot and stick model works with jobs that are very routine and require little rudimentary cognitive skill, but with jobs that require more abstract thinking and creativity, there are three factors to motivation: Autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These factors don't mean the carrot and stick model plays no role in these type of jobs, but intrinsic motivation is the biggest factor rather than simply pleasure over pain.

Guys. If you don't like Greedy Corporations, don't do business with them.

ruveyn

Your lucky you don't have the Scottish git on the back of your bank notes.
(Adam Smith is on the back of the £20 note)

To add to this one John Ralston Saul had what I thought was a great point in VB. One of the bigger irrationalies of the masses has been innovation and technology making the rules and the capabilities of that technology telling us what we now have to do with it. We have a tendency to let technological changes make our social culture, its fine when its something that adds to our lives but we can run afield with that and I'd imagine in this century we'll really have to think of how much we wish to keep our humanity and our culture as its been in tact as - say - we can start replacing most menial labor with robots, reduce even many more typically professional jobs to menial labor, other issues like our ability to choose the genes of our children, etc.. Its also knowing that if technology creates a potential vice that we shouldn't throw ourselves at it face first like automatons just because that potential has been made available (as in yes, we kind of are automatons but - we have a distinct identity in that and we need to hang close to it, otherwise life and our enjoyment of it becomes less optimized).

If we had a truly free market, I'd have alternatives to purchasing items from greedy corporations. Objectivism means the death of the free market and the birth of the corporate state.

No it doesn't. It means the separation of State and Business. The idea is to get Government out of Business and Business out of Government.

ruveyn

You're crazy if you think government and business are in any way separated in the current Randian Objectivist "utopian" free market. Career politicians go work for companies all the time after being drummed out of politics-- and don't get me started on how the businesses lobby and plant corporate shills into office. Laissez faire capitalism, especially when it's as virulently anti-regulatory as the current American brew is, is a veritable incubator for corporate cronyism, because when you don't have rules governing how much influence companies can have, they'll do anything they can get away with.

Read what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter. In -Atlas Shrugged- read how one of the characters, Judge Naragansett proposes to change the U.S. Constitution.

Your problem is that you know nothing about Rand or her Objectivist movement. You are blathering your bigotry because you do not like business or capitalism. You just LOVE the Government handing out tax loot to the unworthy. In a proper society there would be no tax loot to hand out. Taxes would be used only to maintain the police, the law courts and the military for guarding the borders of the country. Government should not be involved in anything else.

ruveyn

You can't speak for me. You have no idea who I am, what I know, or what I believe. I'm left-leaning on social issues, yes, but I have said many times here that I am a proponent of capitalism. What I don't believe in, however, is a corporatist plutocracy wherein individuals get sacrificed so that businesses can run rampant-- which is what we have now, for reasons I outlined a couple posts ago. I don't believe in people rationalizing away greed and selfishness as virtues, nor do I believe in demonizing or condescending to people who truly believe in the merits of altruism. The fact of the matter is, though, that despite all of the bellicose rhetoric about me "blathering my bigotry", you still have not addressed my actual point, which is that your assertion about government and business being separate under Objectivism in practice is completely untrue.