Hi. I remember reading a few totse text files as well as a few posts on the boards here, and it seems that there is a general consensus that corporations, whose ultimate and only goal, is to make money. And this is bad, because the interests of the corporations seem to always conflict with those of the people.

My question is, why is this so? What is the mechanism behind this phenomenon? Why can't the interests of the corporations coincide with those of the common people?

Thanks.

Greed. One man's loss is another man's gain... Now if you had the chance to make 100,000s of people lose, and keep a majority of the resulting gains... think about it.

money = power, and who says anyone has to share power with someone else?

corporations, which make huge amounts of money, therefore have a lot of power. corporations - depending on how they are setup - make the CEOs and other top officials very rich in themselves, giving them most of the power. and as such, they can do what they please because they have the money for it - regardless if it is not in the interest of other people.

By positing that there should be a unique relationship between corporations and the public you are giving a social role to corporations and thus claiming that they can (and should) be governed by society. However, if you just define a corporation in economic terms (a business venture designed to create shareholder value), then there's no responsibility for corporations (besides that mentioned). Who are people? Everyone, or just the shareholders? It would be shaky ground to claim that they are shareholders, thus there isn't much room for ambiguity in this argument (save maybe the perspective that as social entities, corporations should be governed by the definitions of economics, which is a mightily rare position).

As you can see, the question is not "Why do corporations do A?", but "What is the role of a corporation in the context of my personal system of ethics?" If the role of a corporation is to be beneficial to "the people", then why not just call it government?

Just reread your post: the common people may very well be shareholders, so they will definitely profit from the company. Of course, then you'll also have to ask "why does your wearing of white socks (which requires bleach and is thus more expenisve and a greater waste of resources than natural socks, or no socks at all for that matter) not benefit the common people?"

By positing that there should be a unique relationship between corporations and the public you are giving a social role to corporations and thus claiming that they can (and should) be governed by society.

Actually I am not aware that I said anything to the tunes of there being a "unique" relationship between corporations and the public. I recognize that some form of relationship exists between the two, and I want to find out more about this relationship and that's all I want to do. Also I am not really giving a social role to corporations (not that there is anything wrong with doing so; corporations, being part of the society, SHOULD have some sort of social role assigned to them, just like everybody else in the society), nor am I claiming that they should be governed by the society. I was just saying that SOME PEOPLE on totse seem to think that corporate interests tend to conflict with those of the people, and ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE, why is it so? That was my question.


However, if you just define a corporation in economic terms (a business venture designed to create shareholder value), then there's no responsibility for corporations (besides that mentioned).

I know what a corporation is in terms of economic terms. However it would not be the point of my thread to talk about this. The purpose of my thread is to talk about how and why the corporate interests conflict with those of the general public. Also, I agree with you that currently there is no responsiblity for corporations. However my question to you then is, is this the way it SHOULD be? Should corporations have no social responsibilities towards the general public, who sustain the society, from which the corporations make money?



Who are people? Everyone, or just the shareholders?

People refers to everybody living in the society.



It would be shaky ground to claim that they are shareholders, thus there isn't much room for ambiguity in this argument (save maybe the perspective that as social entities, corporations should be governed by the definitions of economics, which is a mightily rare position).

Huh what?


As you can see, the question is not "Why do corporations do A?", but "What is the role of a corporation in the context of my personal system of ethics?" If the role of a corporation is to be beneficial to "the people", then why not just call it government?

Why dont I ask you the same question? What do you think the social role corporations play? What social responsibilities they should have, if any?

Also, just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the role of a corporation is to benefit the people. You were putting words in my mouth. All I did was made an observation, which is that there seems to be a general consensus that corporate interests run contrary to those of the public, and ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE (I say this because I am of the belief that corporate interests can sometimes coincide with those of the public), what is the mechanism behind it?

Actually I am not aware that I said anything to the tunes of there being a "unique" relationship between corporations and the public. I recognize that some form of relationship exists between the two, and I want to find out more about this relationship and that's all I want to do. Also I am not really giving a social role to corporations (not that there is anything wrong with doing so; corporations, being part of the society, SHOULD have some sort of social role assigned to them, just like everybody else in the society), nor am I claiming that they should be governed by the society. I was just saying that SOME PEOPLE on totse seem to think that corporate interests tend to conflict with those of the people, and ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE, why is it so? That was my question.
But the answer to my question will yield the answer to yours. If it is in everyone's best interest for all business to be free, then obviously corporations are some of the greatest institutions on earth. It depends on your ethical system.

I know what a corporation is in terms of economic terms. However it would not be the point of my thread to talk about this. The purpose of my thread is to talk about how and why the corporate interests conflict with those of the general public. Also, I agree with you that currently there is no responsiblity for corporations. However my question to you then is, is this the way it SHOULD be? Should corporations have no social responsibilities towards the general public, who sustain the society, from which the corporations make money?
Should they? Be fucked if I know, I'm a postmodernist today ;). See above, if it is in the best interest of all for there to be maximum liberty in society, then corporations should have no responsibilities but the ones they choose to undertake.

People refers to everybody living in the society.
Got it.

Huh what?
Ultimately it's irrelevant and can be ignored. Let's get the basics down first.

Why dont I ask you the same question? What do you think the social role corporations play? What social responsibilities they should have, if any?
It's your thread, woman! :cool: I don't think there should be corporations, so my argument in the case of "if there have to be corporations, what should their societal role be?" is not as well crafted as why they shouldn't be there in the first place. I think you're going for the compromise in trying to understand the way they work. I think the other posters gave pretty close to the right answer.

Also, just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the role of a corporation is to benefit the people. You were putting words in my mouth. All I did was made an observation, which is that there seems to be a general consensus that corporate interests run contrary to those of the public, and ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE (I say this because I am of the belief that corporate interests can sometimes coincide with those of the public), what is the mechanism behind it?

Well it's obviously greed. You don't have the best interests of the world at heart when you purchase a pair of socks, and the cause of that is greed. I had an edit that may have vaguely alluded to this. What did you think it was? A corporation is just a business with extra rights.

You need to look at it in terms of Game Theory.

If you and I are in conflict and we are the only two players then the more you lose the more I win, the more I lose the more you win.

As the number of players increases things get more complicated but very often a small number of players going against a large number of players gives the small number an advnatage. They often have better information and less complicated objectives. Automobile manufacturers know more about automotive technology than the average consumer. When an automotive engineer goes to buy a stereo system he may know less than the salesman who went to college for history.

On top of that there is the advertising industry that mostly just produces psychological BS since the consumers don't buy for logical reasons anywy.

Should I talk about the dummies running the schools?

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm

Of course Henry George died in 1897 so he never said anything about planned obsolescence and Freudian psychology in advertising.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/economic_documents/economicwargam179613.html

Oh no! I did it again. Run for your lives.

DT

But the answer to my question will yield the answer to yours.

Haha are you trying to make me do some thinking? Anyways, I just thought I wanted to learn your thoughts on this topic. It's fine if you don't want to participate in the discussion.


If it is in everyone's best interest for all business to be free, then obviously corporations are some of the greatest institutions on earth. It depends on your ethical system.

What are you even talking about? I never said it's in everyone's best interest for all business to be free. If anything, I tend to think some corporate behaviours should be restricted or regulated, but that's another thread entirely. Anyway, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that corporations should be free to do what they want or what.


Should they? Be fucked if I know, I'm a postmodernist today ;). See above, if it is in the best interest of all for there to be maximum liberty in society, then corporations should have no responsibilities but the ones they choose to undertake.

I do not believe in absolute liberty/behavioural freedoms, if that's what you are talking about. But that's not the point.



It's your thread, woman! :cool: I don't think there should be corporations, so my argument in the case of "if there have to be corporations, what should their societal role be?" is not as well crafted as why they shouldn't be there in the first place. I think you're going for the compromise in trying to understand the way they work. I think the other posters gave pretty close to the right answer.

Interesting. So you don't think there should be any corporations? Firstly, why not? Secondly, how would a society function without corporations? Just a whole bunch of small businesses?


Well it's obviously greed. You don't have the best interests of the world at heart when you purchase a pair of socks, and the cause of that is greed. I had an edit that may have vaguely alluded to this. What did you think it was? A corporation is just a business with extra rights.

I know it's greed but what I am asking is, what is the mechanism behind greed being the primary motivator behind corporation behaviours which seems to always result in some sort of conflict with the public good? Why can't corporate interests align themselves with those of the public? Why must they be diametrically opposed? What is the mechanism behind this seeming opposition?

You need to look at it in terms of Game Theory.

If you and I are in conflict and we are the only two players then the more you lose the more I win, the more I lose the more you win.


I need to know WHY the corporate interests and the public ones are in conflict.

I need to know WHY the corporate interests and the public ones are in conflict.

in simplest terms: because they are both trying to attain the same goal (money) and neither can both attain it (capital).

What are you even talking about? I never said it's in everyone's best interest for all business to be free. If anything, I tend to think some corporate behaviours should be restricted or regulated, but that's another thread entirely. Anyway, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that corporations should be free to do what they want or what.
Libertarians believe that it's best for all those involved if liberties are maximized. Thus, if you are a libertarian, your idea of what is in the best interest of everyone is going to be different from that of most others. So it depends on your prior values.

Interesting. So you don't think there should be any corporations? Firstly, why not?
The profit motive is wrong.
Secondly, how would a society function without corporations?
It would be tough since corporations have been with us since the dawn of time.
Just a whole bunch of small businesses?
Small collectives acting as pseudo-businesses. I won't get into detail here.

I know it's greed but what I am asking is, what is the mechanism behind greed being the primary motivator behind corporation behaviours which seems to always result in some sort of conflict with the public good? Why can't corporate interests align themselves with those of the public? Why must they be diametrically opposed? What is the mechanism behind this seeming opposition?

Two opposing greeds. I want X because I'm greedy. Corporations also want X for the same reason. Desire for something unnecessary stems out of greed, and in economies of scarcity, there will always be more people that want something than there is of that object to go around. This is best exemplified by money.

Oh no! I did it again. Run for your lives.

DT

:mad:

Libertarians believe that it's best for all those involved if liberties are maximized. Thus, if you are a libertarian, your idea of what is in the best interest of everyone is going to be different from that of most others. So it depends on your prior values.

Hmm? I am not a libertarian. I do not believe in absolute freedoms/liberties. As such I have no moral qualms about restricting certain corporate behaviours.


The profit motive is wrong.

Not that I disagree with you, I just want to know why. What's intrinsically wrong with wanting to make money?


It would be tough since corporations have been with us since the dawn of time.

Not really. Only since the medieval times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate#Corporations.27_history

Though I agree with you it would be tough. I just thought you might have some good ideas.


Small collectives acting as pseudo-businesses. I won't get into detail here.

Why not...I would really love to hear your idea. I want to know how a world can work without corporations.

Hmm? I am not a libertarian. I do not believe in absolute freedoms/liberties. As such I have no moral qualms about restricting certain corporate behaviours.
So my point with that was that different perspectives yield different ideas of "good for everyone", thus you need to work out an ethical philosophy that you can stand on come hell or high water before you can preach about what a corporation should and should not do.

Not that I disagree with you, I just want to know why. What's intrinsically wrong with wanting to make money?
Nothing. Greed is very typical of humans, and the desire to make money is totally fine with me. The desire to make money off of the effort (life) of others, however, is not fine.

Not really. Only since the medieval times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate#Corporations.27_history
It was sarcasm. If corporations hadn't been around in the past, there's no reason why they couldn't be around in the future.

Why not...I would really love to hear your idea. I want to know how a world can work without corporations.

www.parecon.org

I approached the issue philosophically when I came to it, but if you'd like to hear an economic perspective, go there. I think they have the whole text available online (but feel free to read the summary).

So my point with that was that different perspectives yield different ideas of "good for everyone", thus you need to work out an ethical philosophy that you can stand on come hell or high water before you can preach about what a corporation should and should not do.

First of all, I never "preached" about what a corporation should or should not do. Secondly, I don't really need an ethical philosophy to figure out what is it that people generally tend to want. It's fairly reasonable to assume that almost everybody wants clean air, drinkable water, a stable society governed by law...etc.


Nothing. Greed is very typical of humans, and the desire to make money is totally fine with me. The desire to make money off of the effort (life) of others, however, is not fine.

I see.


It was sarcasm. If corporations hadn't been around in the past, there's no reason why they couldn't be around in the future.

I see. So yeah like I said, I would like to hear your vision of how a world can work without corporations. Please I really want to know because I hope to do away with them.

First of all, I never "preached" about what a corporation should or should not do. Secondly, I don't really need an ethical philosophy to figure out what is it that people generally tend to want. It's fairly reasonable to assume that almost everybody wants clean air, drinkable water, a stable society governed by law...etc.
But not everyone wants that; hence the problem. You can make arguments that certain conditions could eventually create worlds in which all benefit, but you can't make that argument directly.

I see. So yeah like I said, I would like to hear your vision of how a world can work without corporations. Please I really want to know because I hope to do away with them.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm

Here ya go.

But not everyone wants that; hence the problem. You can make arguments that certain conditions could eventually create worlds in which all benefit, but you can't make that argument directly.

I already said "almost everybody". That means I am allowing for the possiblity that there are some who will not want clean air and drinkable water. But my aim is not to please EVERYONE in the society, but rather, to please/make lives better for the vast majority. I don't care about the theoretical "all". I know there are some crazy people that DONT want clean air/drinkable water etc but why would I concern myself with pleasing them?

I don't know if you are splitting hair with me or just playing dumb but I am starting to be pissed off. What the fuck is so hard to understand that most normal people want certain things from life? Why the fuck do I need to ensure we all share the same ethical system? Are you nuts?


http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm

Here ya go.

Oh yeah, throwing me a link, that's real helpful.

You don't want to explain your vision to me in your own words, either because 1. you don't want to converse with me, or 2. you don't know what you are talking about.

I am starting to like you less now.

I already said "almost everybody". That means I am allowing for the possiblity that there are some who will not want clean air and drinkable water. But my aim is not to please EVERYONE in the society, but rather, to please/make lives better for the vast majority. I don't care about the theoretical "all". I know there are some crazy people that DONT want clean air/drinkable water etc but why would I concern myself with pleasing them?

I don't know if you are splitting hair with me or just playing dumb but I am starting to be pissed off. What the fuck is so hard to understand that most normal people want certain things from life? Why the fuck do I need to ensure we all share the same ethical system? Are you nuts?
*sigh* You need to get out more.

Oh yeah, throwing me a link, that's real helpful.

You don't want to explain your vision to me in your own words, either because 1. you don't want to converse with me, or 2. you don't know what you are talking about.

I am starting to like you less now.

No time.

*sigh* You need to get out more.

Personal attack.

Failure to address my point.


No time.

You have tons of time to surf totse and post in other threads but no time to respond to me?

Whatever.

Personal attack.

Failure to address my point.
Which one? The initial one? I answered that sufficiently.


You have tons of time to surf totse and post in other threads but no time to respond to me?

Whatever.

As in I literally have to leave in the next 2 minutes.

Which one? The initial one? I answered that sufficiently.

Not that this is important: my point was that I don't need to please EVERYONE in the society. Just the vast majority with reasonable expectations. You know, people who want clean air, drinkable water, a stable society...etc, and furthermore that I don't need an ethical system where I take into account the needs and wants of literally everybody.

Yet you kept harping about how I need to create a world where ALL benefit, which is what pissed me off. It is rather pointless to talk about theoreticals like ALL people, and this is what led me to believe that you were splitting hair with me. Apologies if you weren't.

Also, you personally attacked me, saying that I needed to go out more. That was uncalled for, and "unprofessional". You should have kept to addressing my point, instead of attacking me.

Hmm, I don't necessarily think you can just look at it in such absolute terms. Sometimes their interests run counter to the "common good's" and sometimes it does not. More often than not, they have interests and we do too, they are not the same thing, but they are mutual. Coca-cola wants money, we want coke, we both get what we want. More often than not though, the consumers themselves do not even know what is in the interest of the common good or they don't care, so it is partly the consumers to blame as well.