Big Oil, Big Oil, Big Oil - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SERPENT7 · 11-04-2005, 10:52 PM

I actually answered my own q by reading further down the posts.
As for the advent of society Vs capitolism, 'vigorous self-interest' can be defined as merely seeking short-term profit, (If you are a short-sighted buffoon) or as promoting the general welfare of all, hoping your neighbors will be there to catch you if you stumble. (Even the strongest man fatigues.)

alansmithee · 11-04-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

how do you reconcile this statement with all known models of the advent of society?
That is, isn't it in one's best interest to preserve the social context he or she exists within (unless you are arguing returning to a state of "nature" would someone be in one's best interest)?

It depends on if an individual is made to feel the full (or a significant amount) of the ills they do. For instance, in most cases it's best for businesses to pollute-they do not face the full burden of pollution. It's not about maintaining status quo, it's about finding the point where your own wellbeing is best maximized. Often, that might necessitate having to do some minimum of good for society. But you still are looking toward your best interest, not toward society's. It's incidental that in some situations your intrests coincide with those of society.

alansmithee · 11-04-2005, 11:27 PM

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.

philanderer · 11-06-2005, 04:05 PM

When I said socially conscious capitalism I implied social capitalism...which if you read my understanding and definition of the term, is "socially conscious." I'm sorry if you didn't understand what exactly I meant, and I agree the term is very loosely defined but I think my definition is pretty good. Smart business
to you and to me is obviously a different concept. I am concerned both with the future and with the now of a business, while you are primarily concerned with the now. Neither are right per se and neither are wrong.

As for seeing shades of gray...I don't think BP is evil and I don't believe I said that in this thread (if I did it was a mistake but I dont think I did)...You insinuated I was calling these companies evil and that's not true. That's what I meant when I said that I hate when people boil things down to black and whites. I don't hate these companies, rather I am dissapointed by their irresponsibility with a limited energy supply. This is the reason I did comment on this commercial:

Quote:

Originally Posted by philanderer

That's all I am saying...I realize what they are doing is good, but I have to say no one would be quite so satisfied if a cigarette company invested so little of its money into child smoking prevention. I think to make a commercial touting yourself as a leader in new energy you have to care more than BP does...

Plus by bringing attention to a company that at least has done some good I think that the other companies like Exxon are made to look even more irresponsible. It is good business for these companies to keep their profits or invest them back into oil in the short term, but in the long run it is bad business not to invest any or a very small portion of your profit into the future of your market dont ya think?

11-04-2005, 10:52 PM	#41 (permalink)
SERPENT7 Crazy Location: Gold country!	I actually answered my own q by reading further down the posts. As for the advent of society Vs capitolism, 'vigorous self-interest' can be defined as merely seeking short-term profit, (If you are a short-sighted buffoon) or as promoting the general welfare of all, hoping your neighbors will be there to catch you if you stumble. (Even the strongest man fatigues.)