|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.117.12
In Reply to: I had naturally been aware of the posting to which you responded... posted by feet's too big on March 30, 2007 at 13:53:47:
you might think somewhat differently. Passing judgement on something you haven't even seen seems a bit unlike you Bill.Had you seen the hundred of volunteers, the dozens of (capitalist) companies that donated time, materials, labor etc.
If you're suggesting that Capitalism is devoid of cirtue, let me just say, I have nothing more to say.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
Follow Ups:
(or communism, for that matter), it's simply that - as with most aspects of life - each organisation, policy, etc. will have both inherent advantages and disadvantages, virtues and vices, and I have simply looked to obtain some acknowledgement of this perception...Re the outline you raised, I certainly have no inclination whatsoever to decry any worthwhile and constructive action taken by some on behalf of others in less privileged circumstances, and all such actions would automatically receive my appropriate admiration for the unselfishness of their contributions...
I simply prefer to take an overall view of the whole of any subject as best I can, rather than feel that any individual particularly good OR particularly bad report might lead me to be either unjustifiably indulgent or unjustifiably dismissive in my views...
Without the qualifying comment requested (but still, IMO, not yet received), your posting might indicate that you do not acknowledge the existence or relevance of any negative elements whatsoever resulting from applied capitalism, whether in the US or elsewhere, and that the "Feel Good" factor from accounts such as you have raised you have interpreted as meaning that there are no real problem areas in US society that still require to be addressed...
I would indeed be VERY disappointed in you if the above happened to be the case!...
fraught with problems - I never suggested otherwise. Just tried to bring something good to your attention. Guess I won't be doing that again anytime soon
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
I suppose it may be simply that ANY news, whether good or bad, needs a context to appreciate it's true relevance...My personal concern about any issue progressing from a straightforward and sincere appreciation of a good outcome to one which generates any prolonged "Feel Good" reaction is that whilst we as individuals may (naturally) gain considerable emotional satisfaction (and temporary complacency?) from any "Feel Good" experience, that same satisfaction IMO provides an actual functional disincentive to consider what other aspects remain unsatisfactory, and how they could be improved... We would be too busy feeling good to have any such incentive!...
As you will be aware, any postings implying that "everything is rubbish" (from davec and others) get lots of comment from inmates, myself included, confirming the areas where inmates may feel that such comments become "questionable"...
Any "everything is wonderful" implications would naturally be likely to be treated in much the same manner, hence the request for context...
It stimulates the polarities so that we eventually see all facets.
But it always starts at the ends and works its way to the middle.
Well ... almost always.
In Australia we have a mixed health care system but most people have to fund their dental care. A universal Medicare system and a PBS scheme, plus state dealy rationed dental schemes for the bottom layer.[Our use of cheap generics (production/timing and pricing) being still targetted by the USA and its pharm coys. Under our FTA with them.]
Including exp. on dental care the bill came to around 18 % of GDP, slowly growing unddr watch, despite our aging pop'ns in both countrys, but everyone IS covered.
And you do NOT have to rely on charity if you can't pay, as MM has raised. Governmnent does via US, and we LOVE it. Read the polls!
The USA has NO comparable system, 30% or more of you are just NOT covered and last time I looked the cost was > 38% of GDP and rising rapidly. That's what untrammelled markets can help you with.
Government intervention just is NOT always a bad thing! Do you REALLY think your own CDC's would do a better jobe if privatised! eh? we just let more of it be done. And we will continue to do so, okay? Even if we are part of the 'American Empire', so get over it.
The USA's Pharmaceutical companies are NOT driven by the globe's health needs but by the diseases of those with MONEY, => greed.
They are in dispute with the Thai government over AIDS drug prices.They also pay some of the highest executive salaries in the world. and their s/h haven't stopped this SOOOOOO ..... - re their low profits cf other industries, a much worn argument, anyone can play footsie under GAAP, can't they folks!? Globally it is even easier, too! So DON'T bother with that line, folks.
Informed peoples who've worked in then field don't believe it, nor does the Canadian Government, nor do I!
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Canada as a model of health care. When they're REALLY sick, they come here. By the thousands.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
And this IS one area where I do know what I am talking about, Kava.Are you denying the relative size of the health care bills in OUR two countries?
Not only that we do NOT lack for wealthy doctors! Even the worst off do better than most lawyers.
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism.
Remember Michael Harrington - but it can't work because it requires "force" i.e. totalinarianism to work - and thet guarantees it won't. TQM and other participatory concepts were, in fact, toying with socialism as well
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
Their job is to maximize the return on the shareholders' investment, i.e., make as much money as possible. But that means long term, not just today. So they have to obey laws because it costs money in fines and attorney's fees to break the law. And they have to be good socially conscious citizens because it helps their image in the community, their ability to atttract the best workers and to maintain their customer base. Corporate donations are good advertising. They don't do business in a vacuum.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
I like your textbook, political corporate-speak response, but the truth in real time follows a different path once we get beyond "make as much money as possible." A lot of what you itemize is public relations dressing, a penny spent for a dollar made.Heard of the Exxon Valdez? There's corporate responsibility at it's finest. Corporate profit without social conscience. And it was like that because they could make it that way. Who do you think worked so hard on the lobby front to relax environmental and public safety protections in the first place? And following their failure, worked so hard to weasel out of their liability? For who, the community? Follow laws you say? Who do you think engineered those laws? If you think for a second that corporations and industries are good citizens by choice, or that they aren't working tirelessly to relax oversight of their greed, then ... well ... I know you're not that naive.
Corporations wouldn't have to so self-conscious of their images if they weren't always playing in the dirt. Maybe it was Churchill who said capitalism may suck, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative. Capitalism isn't all bad, but this is the dark side that we deal with. Denying it doesn't make things better.
Capitalism's "dark side" to that of virtually and other economic system - as bad as it may be in some instances.IMV, the single most important word in the English language is incentive. It's wwwwhat makes things work - all things.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
Some of them are run in just the manner you suggest. Some aren't. But I didn't say they were good citizens by choice. I said that if they do good stuff, it isn't socialism as the quote from Friedman suggested, but simply an investment in their continued profitability.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
I think Milton Friedman's point was that the goals of capitalism are maximizing return on investment and that any moral or altruistic component is adventitious to capitalism. Capitalism may create the means to do charitable acts but charity is not an inherent component of capitalism. I think Friedman would argue that corporations are by nature amoral but I'll link to his full text so you can draw your own conclusions.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: