John D. Giorgis said:
> At 01:53 PM 1/24/01 -0800, Kristin "flaming pinko" Ruhle wrote:
> > I say WHAST ABOUT ALL THE
> >POOR HARDWORKING PEOPLE YOU JUST LAID OFF YOU F***ING GREEDY
> >BASTARDS?!?!?!!! FOr someone in China to get a job someobody in America
> >has to LOSE HIS. Gravitating to the lowest wages.
>
> Which is the more socially responisble option?
> A) Providing a job to an American, who living in a solid economy at
> nearly full employment has lots of other potential job opportunities.
> B) Providing a job to an impoverished citizen of a Third World country,
> who without your job would likely be unemployed or working for much lower
> wages.
Obviously John's logic is right and Kristin's emotional reaction is wrong if
corporations, (especially trans-national corporations), are concerned with
being socially responsible and this is a major factor in their decision
making. Trans-national corpns employ PR firms to ensure they are SEEN as
socially responsible.
[ Consider the lucky children in the third world who should be thanking Walt
Disney, MacTasteless, Nike etc for their employment or higher wages. ]
> Additionally, by employing cheaper labor you can produce your
> rechargeable batteries much cheaper
Yes. And it is not just the lower wages or lack of benefits and facilities
for staff that decreases costs. By being "socially responsible" and
following the laws in China, even more savings are made through not having
to follow first world government regulations for staff safety or
environmental protection so those people who lost their jobs will no longer
have the worry of work accidents or local pollution. Will they or Kristin
thank Bolder for this? Ungrateful flaming pinkos indeed!
> allowing you to earn higher profits,
> which is translated into increased wealth for many share-holding middle
> class Americans.
Of course. But Kristin "flaming pinko" was not compassionate enough to
consider these "many" investors. Shame on you Kristin.
> Moreover, even while boosting your profits you are also
> able to lower your prices to undercut your competition (boosting volume,
> and thereby profits),
And the competition will have to transfer production to China also. The
competition will then be able to lay off American staff, earn higher
profits,
create wealth for "many" investors, lower their prices and undercut their
competitors. Brilliant.
> which also makes your products available to many poor
> American that could not ordinarily afford your products, and boosting the
> overall health of the American economy.
So everyone wins. Poor Americans get to buy cheaper re-chargeable batteries
and as the health of the American economy improves, will there be less
homeless, less malnutrition, less personal crime and a decreasing prison
population or will our rulers amass even greater fortunes, widening the gap
between rich and poor and have to create police states to control the
disenfranchised? Try and relate your argument to what is actually happening
throughout the world.
> Wow.... tough choice.
Given that the primary objective of any corporation is to maximise the
wealth of its owners, the choice is simple. In America, manufacturers are
required by law to minimise social costs such as staff illness and pollution
through controls on their operations. By transferring operations to third
world countries they avoid this imposed social responsibility which is borne
by that third world country.
To suggest that corporations make decisions based on social responsibility
is either blind acceptance of propaganda or blatant dishonesty.
The sole purpose of the corporation is to make money. There may be
corporations who are controlled by socially responsible people but if there
is a conflict between profitability and social good, profitability will take
precedence or those people will soon be unemployed. All individuals do not
necessarily put social responsibility before their own financial goals but
there are major differences between individuals and corporations.
Corpns are immortal, do not have a conscience or a "soul", are not social
animals requiring approval and acceptance and are prevented by their nature
and definition from being altruistic.
They can absorb other corporations, becoming omnipresent and perhaps
eventually omnipotent.
They can divest those parts of themselves that incur potential liabilities
or get caught in criminal activities or have a negative social image. Or
they can rename such parts, relaunching them as a supposedly new and
separate corpn with PR and propaganda campaigns.
[....never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, new beginnings,(:>) ]
They can not be jailed for criminal behaviour.
Despite these differences, corpns have used their financial power to gain
the same rights as individuals and spend billions on propaganda to convince
people that they are not just another member of the community but a
"socially responsible" caring and valuable member of that community . Laws
restricting corporate behaviour have been eroded so that they increasingly
have similar rights to individuals such as free speech which results in
manipulative and dishonest advertising as well as soft political campaign
financing. As just another (albeit extremely powerful) member of the
community, they enjoy the same freedoms that individuals enjoy despite them
being not subject to the same social controls that are applicable to
individuals such as shame, remorse, social rejection or incarceration.
Because the mainstream media is controlled by corporations, crime is defined
as being committed by individuals and corporate propaganda attempts to
undermine government influence supposedly on individual rights but the main
objective is avoidance of further government regulation of corporate
activity. Given that government is either the Democrats dependent on
corporate money, or the Republicans dependent on corporate money, there is
little incentive for legal (government) restraint on corporations. Given
that corporations face no social, cultural, or self restraint, is it
surprising that their prime objective of making money causes social problems
because making money is a lot easier if one has no social responsibilities,
few competitors and no conscience.
Bob.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of
strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson
