Originally posted by SeitseTraditionally once a product(s) reach the Corp, state, it's all about the money.
Corporations are creations of society, designed to serve
people's needs. Fundamentally, corporations exist to satisfy
human needs by providing useful goods and services and
meaningful, fulfilling work -and to do so while adding to
society's wealth
Elsworth, Richard. New Corporate Realities. Stanford, 2002. Page 29
[b]Debate[/b]
Lots of 'em started out as one mans idea and just snowballed UPhill.
I can't see the US government forcing major (multi-billion dollar) corporations to do anything. Our politicians don't want to kill that golden goose. They don't even want to risk p***ing that goose off.
We should continue with legislation that allows those most effected by "bad decisions" from corporate managers to seek compensation. The ONLY thing corporate managers understand is a hit in the wallet. Trying to regulate their actions through legislation is difficult, but passing laws that allow victims of corporate malfeasance to seek compensation hits the big boys where it hurts the most.
If you want to find out everything bad about corporate culture all that's needed is a peek into ENRON during the 1990s. ENRON got hammered by the press and became a high profile case, but honestly they were doing exactly what almost all American corporations do. They just did it on a much larger scale. They went completely nuts. And all of it can be traced back to their feeling of "invincibility" among their executive managers. They seemed to believe they were bullet proof. And they almost were. Their tremendous wealth, assets, and political connections were almost enough for them to get away everything but murder.
I agree with you on your critique.
Actually I consider myself in the middle between
the stockmarket capitalists and the welfare capitalists
regarding corporations.
I see enterprises in general as a changing force for the material
benefit of humankind, but also for its human benefit, providing people
(not all but at least as many as possible) with a stimulating,
gratificating job; and also as a force of improvement for the
communities in which they operate.
My only concern is when they are allowed to be shareholder-value
oriented 100%, and all the other stakeholders lose (employees,
environment, communities in which they operate). So maybe the
German and Japanese 'employee-favoring' models are a good
lesson for other companies.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by SeitseI do.
Actually, I think it is not only an interesting but also a necessary
debate to take place. Why? Because some corporations nowadays
have more power* than a single nation-state, with the dangers we've
seen already happening: sweatshop slave work, environmental
disasters, Enrons, etc.
Many authors claim that such disasters happen because of the
underlyi ...[text shortened]... dit. With greater power comes greater responsibility. Who
agrees with this statement?
Originally posted by spruce112358Chicken V egg semantics. You can rant all day that we are all weak easily led sheep responding to advertising stimuli like pavlovs dogs and that we do not purchase any needs from the corps, just vanities of wants. But if that were true then why do some survive and grow stronger and why do some fall by the wayside, overvalued overpriced overhyped and redundant.
They are not designed to provide anything (work or well-being) to society except indirectly through advantages participants in the corporation receive and goods and services the corporation provides to customers.
People buy the produce, and by their purchasing habits constantly refine and redefine the form and even the function of the characteristics of the goods they purchase. The corporations who spend the time in listening to their customers complaints and concerns about existing products, tend to maintain their market even against downward trends in that industry, simply because people will buy products that service their needs.
You can argue till you are blue in the face on how those needs became a constructed reality but ultimately the perception of those needs are enough to drive people to select very carefully when it comes purchasing anything.
Originally posted by kmax87[c] Are you sure?[/c]
Chicken V egg semantics. You can rant all day that we are all weak easily led sheep responding to advertising stimuli like pavlovs dogs and that we do not purchase any needs from the corps, just vanities of wants. But if that were true then why do some survive and grow stronger and why do some fall by the wayside, overvalued overpriced overhyped and redundant ...[text shortened]... ose needs are enough to drive people to select very carefully when it comes purchasing anything.
Sementics is al we got unless you want to do something dire?
But who else is going to leed the sheep? The wolf?
We goto survive the unsluoght that life does to us every day, despite our vanities and wants.
It's true our habit has become comers how else would the ring keep on turning?
But isn't the perception in the eye of the beholder?
Even if we surcome to comers.
Isn't life grand?
So my question is: should we stop the ring and let you of?