Comment Re:How about the system itself? (Score 1) 878
"if sanity were to prevail when weighing social responsibility against profit, the decision--by corporate by-law a bad one--would damage shareholder value, and be grounds for immediate dismissal."
How can this be true in light of the massive and undeniable advances that organised and specialised labour under the direction of leaders has brought?
Unless you would argue that the changes in living standards for the past 5000 years have been purely due to the advances of the People while Capitalism has fought its best to destroy their efforts, it's a quite safe assumption that the capitalist mindset has to some level contributed to what we would today call a better standard of living.
In addition your post is rude - you are implying that people who work - individual people, not the abstract group you define - are 'inmates' running 'the asylum', and that if they let their "social responsibility" prevail, they would hurt the corporation. Thank you for calling me specifically mad, and may I return the favour. I have specifically chosen to go corporate because I love people - and I am specifically refraining from handing out every penny to random people on the street because I know that a society of widespread material wealth is difficult to base on anything but corporatism. In fact, it is social responsibility that PREVENTS me from "damaging shareholder value". Yes, there is certainly some possibility of sharing profits through improved services or working conditions even when it's not strictly required, which should be taken advantage of, but the best way to improve the standard of life for people and exercise one's social responsibility is not to hand out profits indiscriminately.
So, when you generalise in the future, please specify that you are not speaking on my behalf.
How can this be true in light of the massive and undeniable advances that organised and specialised labour under the direction of leaders has brought?
Unless you would argue that the changes in living standards for the past 5000 years have been purely due to the advances of the People while Capitalism has fought its best to destroy their efforts, it's a quite safe assumption that the capitalist mindset has to some level contributed to what we would today call a better standard of living.
In addition your post is rude - you are implying that people who work - individual people, not the abstract group you define - are 'inmates' running 'the asylum', and that if they let their "social responsibility" prevail, they would hurt the corporation. Thank you for calling me specifically mad, and may I return the favour. I have specifically chosen to go corporate because I love people - and I am specifically refraining from handing out every penny to random people on the street because I know that a society of widespread material wealth is difficult to base on anything but corporatism. In fact, it is social responsibility that PREVENTS me from "damaging shareholder value". Yes, there is certainly some possibility of sharing profits through improved services or working conditions even when it's not strictly required, which should be taken advantage of, but the best way to improve the standard of life for people and exercise one's social responsibility is not to hand out profits indiscriminately.
So, when you generalise in the future, please specify that you are not speaking on my behalf.
