What is wrong you ask? Corporate Greed.

[SrKen]

Yes it's about the rich-poor gap, with the excessive incomes while millions live poorly. But there has been a general hatred developing towards the way much of business is operating under our free enterprise system.

Doing business is about maximizing profits and has increasingly been conducted without ethic. There is a lack of effective laws to control unethical business practices, or the will to enforce those laws is just not there. Much of the corporate world has become mean and we distrust them.

Some examples of greed in the marketplace.

• Credit enticements and rates gouging.
• Marketing to kids: morally wrong yet progresses creatively and vigorously.
• Selling unhealthy foods which are cheaper to produce and more profitable.
• Fine print advertisements and contracts that are too hard to understand.
• Inferior product quality that is often just no good but marketed aggressively.
• Sub-contracting production to hide unethical use of cheap or inhumane labor.
• Merchandising environmentally unfriendly, wasteful or useless products.
• Junk mail, spam, telemarketing - annoying, excessive, increases costs.
• Trick labels require careful study word by word to get the true facts, maybe.
• Trick ads that make you think you're getting something you aren't getting.
• Store sales displays catch you at the checkout with the unexpected regular price.
• Shock entertainment and commercials sell, but soil social standards.

..and so on. Protests may be with us for some time.

[russianrocket]

Who's to say what's excessive? Who's to say any of those things are unethical? Are you saying that people are either too dumb or ignorant to learn about things for themselves? Are they not at fault for buying all these cheap, useless, wasteful products?

Steve is unethical for making such a forum, that is causing people to spend hours a day on here....... hmmmmm.....



Companies create products, and people buy products. Period. End of story. Protests won't stop, while people blame everyone else for everything.

[SrKen]

hmmmmm.....

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by SrKen

hmmmmm.....

Look at all the apple users. They are usually intelligent people, who have money. Yet, it seems like they don't care about the cheap labor from China. Do you blame apple, or do you blame the buyers of those products? Is general knowledge of where the products come from. You can't blame a company for wanting to make money. We wouldn't be talking on the computer right now if it wasn't for greedy companies wanting to make money.

[JDuff]

The central concept of the free market system you have described results in a base level of morality - that is, the absolute minimum that can be gotten away with by law. Often, institutions break the law and get away with it in ways that people cannot. They will offer a sacrificial lamb, or bog court cases down in years of paperwork, or delete evidence and promote media campaigns to the contrary.

Think of the bank bailouts, or the BP oil spill, or the News Corps phone hacking.

I have no problem with making money, but regulation is there to protect people, and there needs to be more of it. In my opinion, people don't get a good deal because the weight is on the side of profits and of sucking money up the food chain. It's all very well to adopt a Libertarian view based on Lockean principles, but the reality is that when you are born into a world of vast inequality, and all of that inequality is seemingly entrenched or 'justified', what fleeting hope is there for such a person to redeem a life on par with somebody who just so happens to be born into different circumstances? Equality of far opportunity would be a much better example of a decent society in my opinion, with a minimum level of welfare provided for those who are unfortunate, disabled or unwell, or do not have the natural talents of others, providing they do not continue waste resources or use them for criminal ends.

To succeed in politics you need a lot of money. And this money comes from vested interests who are not the least bit concerned about the lot of the common man, nor of the general good. They are concerned with protecting and enhancing their own interests.

It is beyond doubt that the military-industrial complex, the financial elites and the pharmaceutical companies are far more powerful than the president or leader of any government. Who would succeed if they advocated a restructuring of society in some way to be of greater benefit to the least well off, or the vast majority of people in general? That would not be in the interest of those who decide who rules!

[russianrocket]

Why should the least well off get greater benefits? You'd think that others who are well off, have earned greater benefits. It's always advocation of the least well off, by taking money from the more well off.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JDuff

It is beyond doubt that the military-industrial complex, the financial elites and the pharmaceutical companies are far more powerful than the president or leader of any government.

If you bother to find out a little bit more about the corporate world, you would realise that the biggest companies in the world are mostly not:

(a) the defence technology companies; nor
(b) the banks; nor
(c) the pharmaceutical companies.

Ranked by revenue in 2011, the world's top 10 are in fact companies such as Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Toyota and Chevron.

Ranked by market capitalisation in 2011, the world's top 10 are in fact companies such as Exxon Mobil, Apple, BHP Billiton and Microsoft.

Ranked by number of employees, the world's top 10 are in fact companies such as Walmart, MacDonalds, China National Petroleum Corporation and Indian Railways.

Whichever of the above criteria you prefer to use, it really doesn't bode very well for the theory that banks and pharmaceutical companies are actually the Masters of the Universe.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JDuff

the reality is that when you are born into a world of vast inequality, and all of that inequality is seemingly entrenched or 'justified', what fleeting hope is there for such a person to redeem a life on par with somebody who just so happens to be born into different circumstances?

In the microcosm of the world that is an MNC, one of the interesting things is that the large majority of the global MNCs today have embraced equal employment policies heavily based on fundamental human rights.

For example, my employer has official policies which, among other things, say that anywhere in the world where we operate, we will not discriminate against any actual or potential employee on the basis of the person's gender, age, religion, race, marital status, political beliefs or sexual orientation etc etc.

You might not think that it is a big deal, until you realise that my employer operates in something like 70 countries across the globe, and that in many of those countries, it IS the norm to discriminate against people, on one or more of the abovementioned criteria.

Thus, for example, my employer extends medical benefits to employees and their same-sex partner, even in countries where gay marriages are not recognised or where homosexuality is regarded as a crime. We would hire women, even in certain countries, where women are generally not allowed to work. In India, we would hire employees from any caste, even though those from a lower caste would be rejected by local employers. Etc.

Thus, such MNCs bring a higher standard of human rights and more equal-opportunity employment, to all the countries where they work.

[Brutha]

(a) the defence technology companies; nor
[...] Ranked by revenue in 2011, the world's top 10 are in fact companies such as Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Toyota and Chevron.

Exxon is one of the top 100 US defense contractors.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Whichever of the above criteria you prefer to use, it really doesn't bode very well for the theory that banks and pharmaceutical companies are actually the Masters of the Universe.

Both Pharmaceutical companies and retail banks have large chunks of ownership by private investment companies and funds. The power that a group like Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase has is extraordinary.

Walmart does not have nearly as much power as a company like Goldman Sachs or GE. Sure Walmart is big but its also about access and influence.

Of course we know that Goldman Sachs is a revolving door for powerful government pawns but what type of reach does GE have? Really its not so easy to know...

Companies like Exxon , for example, surely have investors which may include banks and the like. So companies like Exxon , Halliburton or Bank of America , for that matter are the front of the store but behind the store front are the Class A shareholders.

Really if you think about it, most people see a company like Exxon and they believe its an entity all of its own but do not forget that money, banks and large corporation often go hand in hand.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by JDuff

Equality of far opportunity would be a much better example of a decent society in my opinion, with a minimum level of welfare provided for those who are unfortunate, disabled or unwell, or do not have the natural talents of others, providing they do not continue waste resources or use them for criminal ends.

Thing is, equality is a myth. It is something that would only be achievable if every single member of a society willingly consented to it.

Government enforced equality is an oxymoron. There is no equality in penalizing someone for being wealthy and using the proceeds to build bloated bureaucracies and social services that do far more harm to the disadvantaged than good.

Hierarchies have existed since since the dawn of time. They are inevitable. But of all systems and their resulting hierarchies I will always choose the free market above big government and socialism. Under the free market, if I disagree with how an organization operates, I can respond by ensuring they don't get one cent of my money. Under socialism, if I disagreed with how the government operates, I could refuse to pay taxes, but then I would be treated to personally see people's tax dollars hard at work, in a state prison.

[SrKen]

regulation is there to protect people, and there needs to be more of it.

Yes, there are laws to protect consumers but sly work arounds are easy. These laws need constant updating and enforcing, and new ones to keep up with the market changes. I've read of a large pc manufacturer and a sports retailer being fined $300,000 or so for bait and switch marketing. There is not a lot of negative publicity, you have to dig for it, and so no reaction by consumers and it is worth trying this scam again. Without exposure others follow, or lose market share. And the trend continues.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The power that a group like Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase has is extraordinary.

Oh, really.

And how do they share this power? Do they act cooperatively so as to secure their positions as Masters of the Universe, or are they competitors?
Also, what about, let's say:

- France's BNP Paribas
- Germany's Deutsche Bank
- UK's Barclays Bank
- France's Credit Agricole
- China's ICBC
- UK's RBS
- Japan's Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
- China's China Construction Bank

(all of whom, by the way, are larger than JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, going by asset size). Do they also just stand aside quietly and cede control of the universe to JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Why should the least well off get greater benefits?

Because those who have less suffer more. Sometimes they die if left to their own devices. And because those who have more got there by exploiting those who don't in the first place.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Because those who have less suffer more. Sometimes they die if left to their own devices. And because those who have more got there by exploiting those who don't in the first place.

Got it. So, because I earned more, and suffer less, I must give up more, to those who earned less, but suffer more. Makes perfect sense to me.

Left to their own devices. Are you trying to say that people aren't smart enough to live their own lives, so we must protect them from themselves? How does protecting them from themselves actually help them along in life?

Who did I exploit to get more? You are assuming, and putting your own ideas on everyone who has more then you. Perhaps those people aren't suffering, because they spent most of their lives growing their wealth. Most people who earned a lot, got their money from these same people, buying a ton of crap they don't need, who are now considered those people who are suffering. Look at walmart. Who needs most of the crap in there?

Suffering is subjective, and therefor we create our own suffering. Just because you see people suffering, doesn't mean they are, and just because you don't see them suffering, doesn't mean their not.

Nothing you've said justifies taking from others who earned it, and giving to others who haven't.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Got it. So, because I earned more, and suffer less, I must give up more, to those who earned less, but suffer more. Makes perfect sense to me.

Left to their own devices. Are you trying to say that people aren't smart enough to live their own lives, so we must protect them from themselves? How does protecting them from themselves actually help them along in life?

There are mentally and physically disabled people out there. Not to mention mental illness. I think we need to protect those people from themselves, yes. Once that is secured we can see if we can help them help themselves.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Who did I exploit to get more? You are assuming, and putting your own ideas on everyone who has more then you. Perhaps those people aren't suffering, because they spent most of their lives growing their wealth. Most people who earned a lot, got their money from these same people, buying a ton of crap they don't need, who are now considered those people who are suffering. Look at walmart. Who needs most of the crap in there?

Suffering is subjective, and therefor we create our own suffering. Just because you see people suffering, doesn't mean they are, and just because you don't see them suffering, doesn't mean their not.

Nothing you've said justifies taking from others who earned it, and giving to others who haven't.

So what have you said to justify the exploitation of others in the first place? We wouldn't be having this conversation if people weren't getting paid horrid wages.

The thing about exploitation is that it's just the way the system works. You pay the least you can get away with. I did not mention you specifically. It's a system. Obviously it's not perfect. Some who exploit less than others will get stuck paying an unfair share. Around 99% of them

But we need to exploit others just to operate. Just to feed ourselves or clothe ourselves. Indirectly sure. But the system doesn't know any other way.

Regarding the subjective suffering thing...Maslow's hierarchy of needs isn't subjective at all. We can afford to give everyone those base levels of comfort while giving everyone the opportunity to move on up. We're just not doing that right now.

And just to clarify, if you think I'm assuming anything you're misreading me.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

There are mentally and physically disabled people out there. Not to mention mental illness. I think we need to protect those people from themselves, yes. Once that is secured we can see if we can help them help themselves.



So what have you said to justify the exploitation of others in the first place? We wouldn't be having this conversation if people weren't getting paid horrid wages.

The thing about exploitation is that it's just the way the system works. You pay the least you can get away with. I did not mention you specifically. It's a system. Obviously it's not perfect. Some who exploit less than others will get stuck paying an unfair share. Around 99% of them

But we need to exploit others just to operate. Just to feed ourselves or clothe ourselves. Indirectly sure. But the system doesn't know any other way.

Regarding the subjective suffering thing...Maslow's hierarchy of needs isn't subjective at all. We can afford to give everyone those base levels of comfort while giving everyone the opportunity to move on up. We're just not doing that right now.

And just to clarify, if you think I'm assuming anything you're misreading me.

Clearly, I'm not implying that the physically or mentally handicap should be left to their own devises. Again, more words in my mouth. People who CAN'T take care of themselves, is a far cry from people that aren't able, don't want to, too lazy to take care of themselves.

But, when you are talking about taking care of people, you aren't only speaking of mentally and physically handicap people, but you pretend like you are, to make me seem like a horrible human being. Not going to work tho.

I've never tried to justify exploitation of others. I have justified that people create their own realities. You can't exploit a person that doesn't allow themselves to be exploited. You are also judging people as being exploited, when you can't know that unless you are actually in their shoes. Are models exploited? If you talk to a lot of people, they'd tell you that men and women are exploited for their bodies all the time. Yet, you can't exploit the willing.

As far as anyone's needs. In places like America or Canada, anyone can get anything that they want, if they put in the time and effort. No one has to be hungry or homeless. There are people and charities and food kitchens and living areas for anyone who puts in the effort. And of course Maslows theory is subjective. A person can live and be happy with almost nothing. Shelter and food is all anyone truly NEEDS. Everyone has the opportunity to move on up. People from all walks of life have moved on up. Dirt poor, black, female, gay, handicap, what ever. You can see all examples of those people, succeeding in almost all aspects of life.

People in Western worlds aren't getting paid horrible wages. People get paid wages, based on the lifestyle that they are accustomed to. People in third world countries live on much less, and get paid much less, yet can still be happier then people in America getting paid "slave wages".

People have discussions about anything and everything, but that doesn't mean that the things they are discussing actually have to exist.

[MariconesUnited]

Is it that hard to understand that upward mobility is becoming harder and harder? The US is in a very deep recession did you notice?

People are working 2 jobs to make ends meet. In the US. Horrid wages.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Is it that hard to understand that upward mobility is becoming harder and harder? The US is in a very deep recession did you notice?

People are working 2 jobs to make ends meet. In the US. Horrid wages.

STANDARDS OF LIVING. Working 2 jobs is only necessary when you create a life that requires 2 jobs. Go to other countries and they get paid $5 a DAY, so don't sit here and complain about horrid wages in America. Dad made $4 an hour, and a lot of money spent traveling to the job, while raising all of us, yet he managed. Anything else is an excuse.

Is it that hard to understand that upward mobility is always up to us? Why am I capable of it? Why are my brothers and my dad capable of it? Why are the majority of the people I surround myself capable of it, and also never willing to go to one of these types of protests? Keep blaming everyone but yourself. It sure helps people.

I think you might want to reconsider being on a website like this. Or, perhaps read through some of Steves articles.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

STANDARDS OF LIVING. Working 2 jobs is only necessary when you create a life that requires 2 jobs.

Is it that hard to understand that upward mobility is always up to us? Why am I capable of it? Why are my brothers and my dad capable of it? Why are the majority of the people I surround myself capable of it, and also never willing to go to one of these types of protests? Keep blaming everyone but yourself. It sure helps people.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. It's just a system. Who's putting words in people's mouths now?

Good job moving upwards. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's only getting increasingly difficult. All the indicators are there. And why do you simply assume that those who protest won't work or are lazy? It's possible to care for others while working for one's own self interests as well.

The thing about standards of living is that...Some people work 2 jobs just to make ends meet. And I'm not even mentioning the homeless. With unemployment where it is right now, what are these people supposed to do?