Why I Hate Corporate America

deknow · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject:

ok, let's clear away the excess here.

"We SO need a society where MONEY isn't the number one value!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

ok, what to replace money with?

deknow

blue hell · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject:

We do not need to replace the money, it just shouldn't be the nr. 1 value ...

deknow · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject:

sorry, i wasn't clear. so, what should be the number one value? how would that work?

deknow

Antimon · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject:

blue hell · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:

Oskar · Joined: Jul 29, 2004 Posts: 1751 Location: Norway

bachus · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject:

Let me point out again that implicate, in the way deknow's question is phrased,

"sorry, i wasn't clear. so, what should be the number one value?"

is the assumption that there is necessarily a number one and only one value that will fit every one every time. I assert that this implication becomes clearly fallacious if we examine what money is and that it does not satisfy that assumption/implication. Most importantly we must understand that:
Money is amoral. / Money is neither good nor bad.
Money is shouold be understood as a generalizable abstract resource that may, to varying degrees, be instantiated as sustenance, material, physical energy, human energy and the energy of (recruited) intellectual endeavor.

When the abstraction which is money is made the value that trumps all other values we may, for example, end up with a corporate structure that abuses society, for while acting under human direction the use of corporate power(i.e.money) is ultimately decided by completely amoral concerns--"What will happen to the stock price next quarter?" Worse, it is a common failing of human nature to prefer short term benifits -- to get ours now and worry about y'all later. When a large corporarion acts this way not only are individuals hurt, society is diminished as a whole.

The proper alternative is to substitute for money a complex web of values that is ethically balanced. The ethical dimensions of this complex web are where such general values as suggested by Antimon, bluehelland oskar come in. Exactly how these still abstract values are to be instantiated is the proper domain of ethics, politics, and law, to be worked out through the democratic process. That said it should be as obvious that a corporation cannot exist without profits, as it is obvious that a corporation that cannot be both profitable and ethical has no right to exist.

Much of the recent disgraceful behavior of corporations can be traced to the amorality engendered by the view that money can be treated as a value unto itself existing outside of ethical concerns, when it fact it only potentiates the pursuit of values which themselves may be either ethical or unethical.

EOS.

laura woodswalker · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject:

bachus · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

Fozzie · Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:33 am Post subject:

Interesting but somewhat confusing recent discussion here imo. I wonder if money can be said to be a value (in the moral sense), since Bachus already pointed out that money itsself is amoral.
Maybe it would help to define the use of the word 'money' in Laura's statement a bit closer. Would greed be a good substitute? Egoism? Hunger for power (will to power maybe if you like)?

Anyway, I think Love is an excellent alternative, especially in the sense of love another as you love yourself. Not more, not less. I think it will be quite something if the supermarket thing is our biggest problem Wink

. However, I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to believing that mankind will make such a u-turn on its own.

bachus · Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:18 am Post subject:

Fozzie · Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:03 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:13 am Post subject:

Wayne Higgins · Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:56 am Post subject:

What would Oenyaw like to see....?

A few fundamental things could make things a bit better. I have long held an idea for a "corporate responsibility act." Previous American Legislation gave corporations the same rights as individuals, but never gave them the same responsibilities. A good example is an automobile manufacturer that decides that it is better for the business to build an unsafe product and let a few people die than spend the extra money and fix the problem should not be allowed to get away with a mere fine. The corporation should be held accountable just as an individual would be held accountable. If a corporation was dissolved under such circumstances, then investors would think twice about investing their money into corporations that engage in such practices.

What really pisses me off locally was that a grocery store chain (Winn Dixie) decided to open a new store to compete with an already established store (Publix). When the store didn't turn the sales it needed to continue, it simply closed. 15 acres of forest was cleared for each store, and then the land became the site of an empty building and parking lot. Why is the business not held responsible? If they're little marketing plan didn't work, then they should pay for the land to be restored to the state it was in before they decided to build yet another unnecessary grocery store, stip mall, department store, whatever. So now, within a mile from that same location, Costco has cleared about 50 acres of forest for a store. This is with in a 10 mile radius of a Sam's, a Walmart Supercenter, 3 Publix's, a Lowes and a shopping mall. I'm not arguing the right to free enterprise or competition, but all of this is not really needed.

You know, 1/3 of the electricity in America is used in the refridgerated display cases of convienience stores and gorcery stores. 1/3!!! All so we can all get a cold beer for the drive home. As if we could drive home drinkng a cold beer. Besides, in a nation with a alcohol/drug addiction problem, an alcoholic has to walk past 500 cans/bottles of beer to get a soft drink. THEN, you also should realize the definate correlation between the introduction of high fructose corn sweetener and obesity in American children. Is all this convienience really necessary?

I don't think the problem is money as the number one value, albiet a huge part of the problem. The biggest problem with America is that we are a bunch of lazy jerks! The problem with corporate America is that the primary goal is not merely makeing money, or makeing profit, but the priority of a continued increase in the growth of percentage of profit. And... as long as corporate america is anihillating all life to make such a system work, it becomes a downward spiral with no way to stop it. The black hole of economics is greed. The demons of economics are those who claw their way up the ladders of success, and to hell with everyone/everything else.

Ooops. Sorry for the rant. Back to work. Gotta make sure those drums that were burried out on some vacant lot 30 years ago to save some one a few pennies aren't hazardous.

laura woodswalker · Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

jksuperstar · Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject:

deknow · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:06 am Post subject:

ok, this is good.

love, ethics, morality, caring,....a complex web of all of these things...i'm all for it.

the problem is (as i see it), these things are all very subjective (these words mean very different things depending on who you are talking to). ...this gets back to the beauty of money, in that regardless of what you think of all of the above, money is something you can use....it's a glue that keeps us all talking/acting on the same plane even if our beliefs are vastly different.

if money weren't the lowest common denominator in human relations, what would things look like? would you only support businesses who's ethics reflect your own? what would make people/businesses with diametrically opposed views deal with each other in such a world? wouldn't this just lead to a very fractured (and fragmented) society....with everyone only dealing with people "like them"?

it seems to me, that money is a force that attracts everyone to everyone (and you can include corporations there as well). sure, sexual attraction/love will draw some people from different camps together (a la romeo and juliet), but with money, everyone is attracted to everyone...as everyone has some potential that is worth paying for, and everyone has needs that must be paid for.

i agree that $10 pales when compared to love...but that also might depend on how hungry you are, and what you can buy for $10.

i'm thinking of various companies that are anti-choice (dominos pizza and curves comes to mind as examples). these are corporations with a definite world view, and they clearly support their causes financially. as a consumer, i can decide how much i'm opposed or in favor of what they do with their money, and i can balance that out against what products/services are available on the marketplace, and decide if i want to support them. this arrives at an equilibrium in which, for financial reasons, i end up dealing (financially, and face to face) with people whos views are different than my own....sometimes, not always.

would it be wrong to state that trade, throughout history, has been a driving force in bringing different cultures and people with different views together? curiosity would be a factor here as well...but probably after money/trade would come the desire to impose one's own beliefs on others (think of missionaries).

so if we take money away from the equation, where do we end up? what is going to bring people with different views together? well, clearly, we are having this discussion here with no financial outcome for anyone...so there is _some_ drive to share with others with whom we don't agree...that is encouraging.

but on a big scale? if i don't value how i spend my money...and various individuals/corporations don't value getting my money, it would be easy to simply associate with only those who i mostly agree with. then, i have no influence on what corporations do...they have no need to "buffer" what they do based on what i, the consumer wants....as it stands, i can "vote with my wallet"...and conversly, i can compromise some (or all) of my values for financial reasons in whom i support, and whom i allow to support me.

i'm afraid i'm not expressing myself very well here...and i have to get back to my taxes Sad

...but what i'd like to convey is that by having money (something that is universally valued, universally needed, and not subject to individual interpretation) as the base of how society operates does much to keep society from fracturing into camps of beliefs which have nothing to gain from each other, and nothing to offer each other (do people with 'belief x' really want people with 'belief y' to change camps?). this is an oversimplification of the concept, but i hope the idea is clear.

deknow

Oskar · Joined: Jul 29, 2004 Posts: 1751 Location: Norway

Oskar · Joined: Jul 29, 2004 Posts: 1751 Location: Norway

Deknow, I won't mind if money is thought to be ONE important factor in our existence, as I don't think it'd be either feasible or advisable to let any ONE factor outshine the others. However, when the main - in some cases sole - emphasis is put on money, I get upset! Shocked

You have to excuse me, I subscribe to an outmoded belief - Socialism. Embarassed