Hap jou maatjie
Raising a society - it would seem to me - is not unlike raising children. Society tends, if left to itself to be immature, often unpleasant, inclined to do things because somebody thought it would be fun - which it usually isn't for the victims. As you might have guessed I am not one of those who holds to the concept of innocent savage or noble
( Read more... )
Walt, I am a great believer in Adam Smith's mirror of society. It worked on SA because they percieved themselves as part of the Western world. It hurt to see themselves as the bad-guys in that mirror. It's not going to work on Bob, because his society refuses to censure him (actually gives him tacit if not open approval). But if society in West/US turns against those who take advantage of their fellow's misfortune (and there is a difference between that and 'rich') -- and a lot people who are rich are going to want distance themselves from these folk, mighty quickly. Being ineffectually ostracised by a wider distant society --which has racists of its own and considerable reason to distrust the black liberation movement, and trying to live inside a society where condemnation is near universal is a different thing (as I saw in the army). I don't think shooting them is necessary. A public "Your selfish greed and bad management brought your company to where it is: We'll rescue your company, on condition that you and your entire board walk -with no benefits, otherwise everyone in company will be unemployed..." there'll be very few executives who won't go then, and there'll be very few executives who don't take large steps to show they're not very very very different.
I actually don't have anything against people being rich (although I'm not in favor of inherited wealth, or corporate wealth). I've got scant sympathy with those who get that way by exploiting the misfortunes of others. That's what the quoted examples are all doing.
Reply
I'm all for campaigning for that level of social responsibility, and I'm not unhappy with Obama when he did just that with the CEOs of Merrill-Lynch and General Motors.
And I agree with you about inherited wealth...although Andrea is upset that I've left my book collection to Bananaslug U. (Univ. of Calif. at Santa Cruz where the Heinlein Papers are...my library is going to be an addition to RAH's)
Reply
Companies that make their dime by *causing* misfortune, on the other hand, I have absolutely no sympathy for. False advertising. Charging unanticipated extra fees of the "because we can" variety once a customer is locked in. Short-sighted, zero-sum behavior - making a nickel this quarter at the cost of a dollar over the long run.
Incidentally, how would you define 'corporate wealth'? A large corporation *is* going to have a lot of assets, yes; tools for getting things done. Office space, corporate vehicles, furniture, racks of tools and servers.
Reply
I have a problem with large corporates as a business structure as I believe the only thing they're any good for is competing with other corporates. I believe they're anti-competitive, anti-progress and bad for society as whole. I'd put an upper limit on company size (and cross control) before you got taxed out of existance. SMME are proven more efficient, employ more and have better culture of responsibility IMO.
Reply
Bankers: South Africa may, or possibly doesn't, have payday loans available. These are basically 'bridging, until your next paycheck' ultra-short-term loans that you get at checkcashing places. You provide proof of regular employment (i.e. previous paystubs) and IDs, and you can get money. It's repaid inside of a week and the effective APR is often above 500%. Is that gouging?
It's a competitive market, and the people who use these services don't seem to consider themselves to be gouged. In Medieval Europe asking *any* interest on a loan was considered usury. If modern bankers nowadays couldn't turn a profit on loans, the global economy would collapse.
I'm reminded of a line in Jurassic Park. Somebody asks the park's creator why he turned his genetic research into a dinosaur theme park, instead of developing life-saving medical treatments. The guy responds to the effect of "If something is essential for life, people will be attacking me hard if I try to make more than a nominal profit on it. But I can charge what I like for entertainment, which is clearly a 'want' and not a 'need.'"
I've got issues with working for large corporates, myself. I don't like their stable (read, static) culture and emphasis on process as opposed to results. Dynamic, growing startups are much more my kind of thing.
On the other hand, most startups do dream of being the next Google or Microsoft. Their founders would be happy if they could walk away with a few dozen million for their time and investments, but they *want* to see if they can make it to the billionaire level.
Set an arbitrary limit on how big a corporation can get, and... one, you've removed that incentive. Two, companies would find a way around it. There are plenty of indirect, unofficial ways to exercise control.
Reply
Not necessarily. Islamic finance maintains the prohibition on usury but manages to make a profit through risk-sharing/partnerships. It appears that this made it a LOT more stable during the Asian financial crisis. We'll see how it goes this time, of course.
Reply
Reply
Or a simple solution might be to change the laws governing incorporation to include personal liability. In other worlds, make the corporate body as liable as an individual. For example, a corporation might be convicted of criminal activity. The ramifications of this would be rather profound. As it is, corporate bodies have gained massive protections in most legislative frameworks without a great deal of the associated risks.
Reply
Reply
The big question you need answer is what are those guys dreaming of and why? The truth is they're not dreaming of money more than they could possibly spend and enjoy (money is like food. none to a bowl of rice is vast,rice and almost named meat is big, and to steak egg and chips, a smaller step (although it costs 10 times as much)and that 3 course meal smaller still, and 3 courses to 15 courses doesn't increase satisfaction much on steak egg and chips although it cost 50 times as much). As various people have pointed out, above a certain level it's a status marker. That's normal primate behavior. Now the trick question. Your son (a bright young man) is being chased by two girls. One has a PhD in Maths plays hockey for her state and is penniless. The other is a dim bimbo who can't play tiddlywinks -too much co-ordination and strength required, but dresses well and has a trust fund. Which one do you hope for grandchildren by? Yeah. Basically unless you're a loser already, the bright athletic kid right? She and your boy will get there well enough. Money is an adjunct to status not a marker for it. It's a second class status marker anyway. People have been trying to put over the snow job that its more than that. Those are people who have no more than that. Tell me you made 10 000 000 and I'm impressed -especially when you show me you did it with hard work/cleverness etc. Tell me you _have_ 10 000 000 in trust fund...that's very nice. But its not status.
As for need-not-wants and definitions of fair etc. Oddly that is the one thing our species seems evolved (as an intelligent social species) to decide on very precisely. And to LIKE deciding on. Hence the need for secrecy by those who want to screw you. I could practice total 'glasnost' with my business side without a shred of fear. So could - based on the honesty that Webscriptions DRM free nature has displayed - 90% of us.
Reply
Leave a comment