Quote:
|
Originally Posted by philanderer
Obviously you didn't understand what I've said. I do understand capitalism and I don't claim to call a single corporation evil. I haven't called BP evil or any of the oil companies evil, and I hate that people always boil things down into polar opposites. It's not a world of black and white, there is gray in every crack, so try not to boil this down to good and evil. I believe the first thing I said was that social capitalism probably would never be accepted; however your argument that the people should "through government" control these corporations rather than the corporations controlling themselves smacks of social capitalism.
Social capitalism is the need for an active government role in business development and operations. What social capitalism argues is that government is not invisible, as in the free market form of capitalism, nor is government all intrusive. Instead, government must be active and protect society from the inherent flaws of a free market capitalism.
So...you pretty much said social capitalism was an oxymoron, and then lobbied for it in your closing sentence.
|
Two things:
1. You didn't say social capitalism, you said social councious capitalism. When you add that one word, there's a big differnce. You can't change your argument mid-stream.
2. And as for the term "social capitalism", there seems to be no recognised defintion. I have never seen this term used anywhere in political science, sociology, or economics. To me, it sounds like something you made up. I did not advocate "social capitalism" as you are trying to relabel it now, I did advocate governmental interference in regular capitalist systems as a means of better serving society as a whole. And this is NOT capitalism, it is government interference.
And as for seeing shades of gray, you weren't so hot on seeing the shades of grey when you made this thread. You say you hate when people boil things down to polar opposites, but that's exactly what you did-the oil company research was not enough, and they are wrong for not spending more. There's no room for grey in that opinion.
Quote:
|
That there is no consideration whatsoever for society in the boardroom is ludicrous. It seems even from this thread that companies like BP who invest even a small share of their profits into R&D that helps our society are rewarded with media exposure and praise on most fronts (that includes you)...So wouldn't it be in a companies best interest to understand how it affects soicety and its consumers lives. It seems you're forgetting some basic rules of business: know your customer and keep the customer happy. So being socially conscious, while sometimes harmful to a corporation seems like it aught to be rather important to corporations. Hell look at Wal-Mart. Why spend tons of money fighting all these lawsuits over labor laws? Because PR is a damned big part of business and drives the sacred capitalist bottom line up or down in most cases.
|
It's not ludicrous at all if you would take time to look at it from a business' perspective. They will do what is in THEIR best interest. Any way this coincides with society as a whole is entirely incidental. PR can factor in, but the cost is weighed against any percieved benefits (as is any form of marketing). For instance, BP invested in developing other sources of fuel. But this isn't because it's in society's best interest, it's because it's in their best interest. It allows them to market an add campaign celebrating their foward-thinking environmental policies, while simultaneously trying to anticipate any new developments that might negatively affect their current major revenue source (petroleum based products). They could get the same (or better) PR by simply donating that funding to an environmental concern, or even cancer research. And society would be just as well, if not better served. But neither of those actions is cost-effective for BP, because they do not give the other added benefits of funding energy research.
And a business only seeks to keep it's customers as happy as it profitably can. Many businesses would have much happier customers were they to cut prices in half, but that isn't hapening.