Let's Redefine Capitalism
I thought this was a pretty good article. It discusses how many companies these days are orienting themselves towards higher purposes, rather than simply focusing on turning a profit. I think that's a good mentality to have, and it refreshing to see more and more businesses operating under that model.
There's also a really good book on the subject of social capitalism titled "The Social Capitalist," by Josh and Lisa Lannon. Here's the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Capital...
There's also a really good book on the subject of social capitalism titled "The Social Capitalist," by Josh and Lisa Lannon. Here's the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Capital...
Ok, let me make sure this isn't a joke...you really believe this is a "good" thing? Are you sure you are in the right forum?
From where I sit, it is up to each individual business to determine why it is in business as there are non-profits and for-profits. Since you appear to be talking about for-profits and their purposefully limiting profit "for the greater good," that is their choice altruistically, and this is fine just as long they they don't call it "good" since that begins to create a standard which means not doing so is "bad." When using valuational terms such as "good," you define "bad" by default of doing the opposite.
It's the sort of thing that I would say is good to do, but not bad not to do.
Companies are not human beings. A human being who wants to help others is probably a pretty good human being, provided he doesn't take from others or require others to also help.
A company who wants to help others *is imposing its controller's values on the employees and customers*.
Whoever makes such decisions is deciding for the whole company. Suppose, for example, the company I work for decided to donate to the Nature Conservancy? Now a tiny portion of my paycheck goes to support something I oppose; money that could be used to hire more people, to expand the business, to add a new product line, to reward me for my exceptional contribution not only gets wasted... it gets wasted on something I oppose!
Companies are in the business of making money. Note the Randian term in there: *making money*. They are NOT in the business of remaking the world in an image which corporate officers like.
If I could I would say its criminal for anything other than an individual to provide funds to a charity or cause of any kind. Once its in a entity that has stock holders some of those stock holders may be being forced to contribute to something they do not support and would stand against. That is an initiation of force against that stock holder and should be a criminal act.
If you all ready own the stock and the company gives a bunch of money to something you don't want to support without announcing it first, to late. You were just forced to support it against your will, that action should be criminal.
The solution was not to conserve to capture and use. A series of dams were planned on several rivers, most on the severe river which starts and ends in Utah without ever leaving the state and the water end up in a salt flat evaporating away. The creation of these dams (only about 3 were ever made) would have provided more than enough drinking water, water for farming and every other need one could conceive. It was at that time considered more than Utah could ever use even if the population increased 1000%.
Today people talk conservation rather than capture and use. Sounds an awful lot like atlas shrugged to me.
Some has been lost to outgassing, but much has been gained by bombardment from space. We're continually being rained upon by celestial debris.
But, as Isaac Asimov pointed out in his most excellent "The Martian Way":
There are one and a quarter QUINTILLION TONS of water on Earth.
I should not have said exact and I should have qualified "creation" to "formation" but my point still stands-no water scarcity
Where this breaks down is when governmental regulation steps in and says "you now have to do it this way." If we are talking about utilities that are governmentally owned/subsidiezed then I think that still may be the right thing to do but if I can't care for my patients the way I feel is best and the patients want to be cared for because of regulations then that is always BAD for the society.
It's my opinion that the right way for society to change in the environmentally responsible direction is for our tax dollars that are allocated for that to be used for educating the public so that those that can will choose to make their dollars flow towards environmentally responsible companies. The Energy Star rating is probably a decent and successful example of this. I can hardly find an appliance anymore that doesn't have that Energy Star on it. Hopefully that is not because you can just buy a rubber stamp for it but because it gave the companies a profit incentive to make them that way because the consumers felt it was better and sometimes got a tax credit for buying an energy star rated appliance.
Usually these "Socialist-ly (ir)responsible" companies look at one thing - can I use this cause to make me money? Worked for one of thse - the stated "primary purpose" was to promote Arab-Jew harmony in the middle east... realized after a few months the real purpose was to use this as a means to get customers to generate business - by the time it was over, they not only didn't do much of anything toward this "great socialist program", they missed the mark entirely (not to mention, numerous payrolls, supplier payments, and equipment maintenance funding needed to stay in business).
It's a great and noble thing for a wildly successful company to support an alturistic goal... but first, you have to become a wildly successful business. Starting a business to give it all away builds nothing except a hole.
I agree and gave you a thumbs up, but for me there needs to be a point cleared up in your statement.
Its a great and noble thing for the owner of a wildly successful company to support an altruistic goal with his/her money made from that wildly successful company.
I do not believe it a great thing for the company to do (unless the owner is the only owner) because they may have some goal that I as a stock holder in that company do not agree with and should not risk my money on that venture. If they have stockholders its a form of theft.
Then he died and McDonald's corporate took over and turned it into Ronald McDonald Charities, and advertised the crap out of it.
How about McDonald's around here having "Hispanic employee of the month" posters in their drive-through? I don't know what the award is, but every time I see the poster, I want a Whopper...
Do they still do that? How is that different from just employee of the month b/c all their employees are Hispanic. Most people there are hispanic. I hear the non-hispanics speak proficient Spanish with an English accent. (I know b/c I speak Spanish with a moderate English accent.) I rarely hear English, except the people who deal with customers are very proficient in English. The McDonald's in my area are a MODEL of excellent customer service. I've never seen any of that employee of the month stuff here.
There are three issues that get confused IMHO in this article.
1. Not pushing your negative externalities (e.g. costs of pollution) on to others.
2. Being a good citizen in business, making decisions you're proud of.
3. Providing humanitarian relief for the needy.
#1 should be required by law. #2 is good practice. #3 borders on cheating your partners / shareholders. If you're the sole owner, it's not cheating but it confuses the issue.
Public businesses often do a bad job of #2 b/c no one takes responsibility. People do what managements asks. Management does what the board asks. The board does what analysts and institutional investors ask. Institutional investors do what it takes to get retail investors the return they demand. Public liability-free ownership has many advantages, but it unfortunately reduces accountability. You get a whole society of people doing things they would not do if they were the sole owner of the business.
So... how do you feel about legalizing marijuana? (rhetorical question, don't answer).
So, keep your "negative externalities" to yourself. Yup, give up pooping peeing and breathing.
thanks for the link to the book. I find this social trend interesting and will be checking it out.