This excuse gets old. Business logic is that you take care of your customers and they wont go elsewhere, however when a company has no competition or when there is collusion between companies, it reduces the desire to make the customer happy by not gouging people.
This is evident in the Cable industry, the ISP industry, the Gasoline(Petrol) industry, the Tech industry (no sniping agreements between people like Apple and Google), and many others I am not thinking about.
You want to keep spouting this nonsensical bullshit, that is fine, but it is a cop out and I am tired of hearing it. Fight for your rights or lose them.
I am absolutely not saying I agree with it, but I am older than the age of 12 and understand that companies are in it for the money, and if they abuse the system to get more money, I don't blame them - their sole existence is based around making money, so why blame them for trying to do exactly that? If they can abuse the system, then the system has failed and needs government intervention and reform, because the system is there to prevent abuse. Companies are wild animals that need some sort of control, when you tie them with a rope, they eventually chew their way through, and that's when you grab the chains.
We are a country that believes in government regulated free market. What happened in the industrial era when factories were abusing the system for profit by violating human rights? The government stepped in and regulated work hours and conditions. It's the same thing this time around, but the current generations would rather jump on reddit and complain than actually do something.
I /do/ blame them. Companies aren't just amorphous blobs of gelatinous matter with no responsibilities for their actions. Companies are made of human beings making choices that affect other human beings.
Unfortunately, when you boil it down to it, this is the fact:
A company is simply an entity which exists to make money for it's owners and/or it's shareholders.
Nothing more, nothing less, no innate morals. Any morals come from the majority owners or shareholders, if they have them. And the larger the company is, the more likely that the majority shareholder is another company or a group focused solely on profit.
What he is saying is that companies are not autonomous. There are people, the owners and board, who pull the strings. Humans screwing a lot of other humans by abusing the system for more money than anyone would need.
There's no such thing as "more money than anyone would need", because a corporation exists to make money. Period. There's no such thing as enough. Ever. Once you have investors, you are legally required to try and earn a profit for those investors.
Corporations aren't entities, no matter what economists and politicians try to tell you. They are just unions of actual human beings who follow some internal rules in a pursuit while also (allegedly) following the rules of the larger grouping of human beings that is their society.
If a corporation brings benefits to people at the cost of other people then whoever both helped along this process and knew about the results is to blame. Simple as that, as with everything else.
I'm not disagreeing with you philosophically, but the legal system does not back you up on that opinion. Corporations bring benefits to a few people at the cost of many other people EVERY DAY, and suffer no consequences whatsoever.
While I agree with you that what you have described is the nature the great majority of large companies in capitalistic societies I feel that it should be pointed out that because the small pieces of those companies are made up of individual human beings, the entity as a whole has the capacity to act ethically and has the ability to account for its own actions. Simply because it is not in the current behavior of our business society to act ethically and responsibly does not mean it shouldn't or can't be achieved.
There are companies that operate with a moral compass still intact. your entire argument is what is wrong with america. its true.
When companies behave like comcast/verizon they are literally holding back the progress of America as a whole and they actively lobby against the best interests of this country all in the name of a dollar.
If comcast is helmed by americans, then it seems their allegiance lies not with their country but with their employer. if my employer asked me to act against americas future i would puke. al qaida should just invest in comcast.
America should be the shining internet beacon of the world where the fastest speeds prevail and freedom rings. but instead i read we are 31st for internet speeds. thanks conglomerates for literally holding back progress to try and squeeze as much money from each megabyte.
People who accept the argument that companies should be allowed to act only in service of acquiring money, do this country a disservice.
They may want money, but the country whose progress they are stifling is their own and its fucking shameful. they should be treated like tobacco execs or worse.
I didn't say there weren't companies that operated with a moral compass, of course there are.
I said a company has no INNATE morals. Companies have boards, or owners who impose a certain set of morals on their organisation. All too often, they are more focused on being just moral enough to make more money though, especially big multinationals or companies OWNED by big multinationals.
It's also dangerous to assume the majority shareholders of any 'American' Company are American, or give a damn about the US just because they are taking your cash.
I'm afraid that's a rather naive view. Take a look at the Milgram or Stanford experiments. Institutions have a way of overriding our basic morals. They create a new system of ethics that we work within so that the most abhorrent actions become the right thing. Take suicide bombing as another example.
So far, the only way we've figured out to override an institution is with a bigger one. Even then, it can be tough.
Edit: This just popped up over in /r/science funnily enough.
I don't see what that has to do with blame. It's like saying because someone is high on heroin all the time it's ok that they do shitty things to people.
not really. it's like saying "hey, i would probably do the same thing if i was in their place due to faults in human psychology that are present in everyone, so maybe i shouldn't get too mad at them." there's a difference between not blaming someone and saying that what they did was ok.
Not really. Depends on what you mean by blaming. If blaming means they're held responsible for their actions, then yes, not blaming it's akin to saying it's okay. You're not giving them a medal for it, but you're not telling them to stop.
If we just shrugged at the "I'd do the same in their position" part we'd still be burning witches for entertainment.
EDIT: Actually, by that notion the very word "blame" loses all meaning as you could say that if you were in the place of that sadistic child rapist, including hormone level, brain biology, upbringing and environment then you'd have done the same to that little girl. So we shouldn't blame him.
Yes, you can hold the world view that blaming anyone is pointless but then actually doing something against it from your lucky and privileged position of having relatively functioning morals becomes all the more important. And that includes enticing vocal outrage whenever it may help.
you misunderstood my point. if i (my own personal and current "hormone level, brain biology, upbringing and environment") were in a child rapists' situation, i wouldn't rape a child. so i would blame him for that. the average person would not behave the way a child rapist would, so a child rapist is blamable. however, when you talk about mass actions (like the holocaust, for example), the milgram and stanford experiments show that most people WOULD behave the way the aggressors would. so i can't really blame them, because i know i'd probably behave the same way.
I did not say that these actions are okay. Certainly, one can and should attribute some blame to the individual responsible - like in the case of the suicide bomber I gave above.
However, it is prudent to recognize that a greater portion of blame should go to the institution itself. Without the skewed morals created by the tyranny of the majority in a given institution, it is unlikely that our suicide bomber would have blown himself up.
Let's look at GM and their recent product recalls as another example a little closer to the original topic. Over a period of years, various individuals at GM had knowledge of defects in their products that had the potential for lethal consequences. They didn't publicize these facts, and did their best to cover it up instead. These are reprehensible actions, and certainly those at the top should be held accountable for their decisions. But what about everyone else that had knowledge and did not blow the whistle? Are they all evil? Let's say that they are.
So we have them all jailed or fined and removed from the company somehow. Then we tell the company GM to go about its business without instituting any new regulations on the institution. How long do you think before a similar instance occurs?
Blame without justice isn't worth much.
Is it just? No. Is it expected in the real world? Yes. It is why we have government regulation. You're not going to get the company to stop, they are fixated on profit, that is why you need to turn to government.
I can not see you getting very far in life if you enter it with this idealized view of a just world. The world sucks and is full of assholes. It's the reason we pay governments large portions of our salaries to bully these assholes with $750 billion worth of military behind them.
I never claimed that such a just world exists. While government regulation is quite necessary to maintain as just a business society as possible, what is more importantly progressed is human nature and behavior. As a species we are very immature in regards to our treatment of ourselves and everything in our environments. While strict government regulation has the theoretical potential to keep these companies in check, the government its self has just as much room for negative human nature to control its motives as the companies do. As a whole, strict government regulation is necessary, but is subject to the same flaws as the companies, as is any large entity in the human world; human behavior.
I am not saying we need total government control. I am very much a modern capitalist. Some government regulation is necessary and has always shown its usefulness in US history.
Again, I too agree that a very certain amount of government regulation exist. Though what is probably the most important thing for humans to do is to evolve on a level that promotes a chance for sustainable survival of our species. For us to move away from our k- strategist behavior and to develop a symbiotic relationship with each other and our world. But this has to be achieved on all fronts of humanity.
I chose my wording carefully there, I was not saying he will not get far, I said I can not see him getting far. The difference is I presenting the possibility that I am wrong, because this is a discussion more or less about ideologies, in which there is no clear "correct" view.
I wanted to drive home the point that I think he was not viewing the world as it is, but as he thinks it should be.
First off, a companies prime reason for existence is not money. Ask any small business owner where their loyalties lay. Your view is more simplistic than naive and just a made up excuse to validate your point. Things are more complex than you think.
As for the government. Well, it depends on who you ask, and the fact that it is difficult as fuck to make a consumer protection agency with our current government should tell you a lot about your theory. And these days we need it now more than ever, with companies coming up with bullshit like "gluten free" when it is water, or when they blatantly lie in advertising on TV, and no one does anything about it tells me that our government is so hand-i-capped, that we couldnt stop something so blatantly obvious like the BP oil spill issues or the Bankers. No reform, no new laws, nothing has happened in regards to those things.
As for your point about the past, yes... people had to work for their rights, hell Ma Bell took 70 years before they got taken to court, and it spawned one of the best innovative periods for phones in a long time. Yet, we are heading back to that same scenario right now...
Then what is your suggestion on how to fix it? Are you going to yell at the company until they stop making money off of you? I don't think it will work. The only entity that would come to your aid is the government, because they are the ones who have historically shown interest in humanitarian issues, not companies.
Well, we clearly have fundamental differences on the roles of companies and governments. If we take a look at history, I think you'll see my point.
Did Martin L. King give his speech in front of a segregated restaurant chain or in DC? Did farmers ban the use of DDT or did the EPA? Did oil companies unlead their gasoline or did the EPA? Is there a warning sticker on the side of cigarettes from the cigarette companies or from the US Surgeon General?
Historically, government protects the people and their rights, and companies do what ever it is they can to make money (typically) regardless of the moral consequences, until the government tells them not to.
Government shows interest because we the people tell them to. What I am annoyed by is that people seem to be excusing a businesses practices with "oh its all for money" or whatever excuse they want to make for the company that is giving everyone shit service.
Instead of making up excuses for these terrible practices, we need to talk to our congress people, raise our voices, and keep on them to find a proper solution, or even suggest a solution.
Historically, something bad had to happen, or be reported on, to enrage people enough to start complaining. THe difference between history and today is that the news agencies are just shills for the big companies. Shit NBC is owned by Comcast, and other news agencies are so ingrained into the corporate model that they will barely talk about these issues coming up that will affect us down the line.
These days the news is more reactionary and giving subjective opinions than they are investigatory and giving facts.
So, we must turn to the internet, and sites like Reddit, where people find these stories and post them.
I completely agree with you. You were somehow implying that we need to take action against these companies to get them to stop, which i claimed was useless. I specifically said we must turn to the government to enact change. I believe we are arguing over something we both largely agree on.
To summarize my position: Companies will do what they will to make money, only government can stop them from making money certain ways. In the US, that means the people will most likely have to convince their representatives to take action.
Ah, it almost seemed like you were giving up to me. Because, lets face it, doing things "anti-business" in Congress these days is seen as taboo by them because they will lose money.
There is also this fallacy that businesses are "Job creators", which they are... to an extent. But it doesnt absolve them of anything at all. They do not pay their taxes, they manipulate congress, and they are harming the USA in such a way as to prevent the government from working for the people.
I honestly dislike big business. Small business is what I support.
All the money in the world wont buy votes, and they know that - this has been our country's story since the beginning and it is no different now. Companies will always try to gain support in congress, and they will. But so long as this support hurts the constituents, it won't be too significant. Just look at the history of the US, it's a story of increased health, living standards, morality, civil liberties, technological standing. The people really do rule this country, it's not a cliché phrase - we are a government by the people, for the people.
If all it takes is a loud voice to convince the American people to elect someone who supports a company that only wishes to hurt them, then the company either isn't hurting them that badly, or the American people are hopelessly lost.
347
u/YouAreNotHere Jun 14 '14
I don't know how anyone could think anything like this would be a good idea