• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Has Mr. Trump Not Mobilized American Industry to Produce Medical Supplies?

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I prefer to keep the government out of it as much as possible because they're not good at these things. :D
Au contraire. This is exactly what government is supposed to be good at. Co-operation and co-ordination is the whole purpose of government. The whole Social Contract is based on the idea that we can accomplish more, and be more prosperous if we all pull together, rather than compete.
That's what's great about America -- private industry solves the problems much more quickly because they're financially advantaged to do so.
How is a zero sum strategy going to address the common good?
Corporations were originally conceived of as temporary associations to serve the public good, though a reasonable profit was allowed. If they could not demonstrate a public benefit at their charter renewal hearings, they were dissolved.

Now they've become completely detached from any duty to the public. Today, corporate ethics revolves around their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and it's considered immoral to fail to maximize profits by any means possible -- even at the expense of the public. If you can make more money by charging extortionate prices for necessities, it's immoral not to do so. Obsolete, money wasting, "socialist" policies like the Strategic National Stockpile https://www.phe.gov/about/sns/Pages/default.aspx are quietly dismantled or neglected.

Part of the corporate cost of operation is the buying of politicians, whose jobs depend on their serving the pecuniary interests of their overlords. No-one is looking out for the interests of The People. Emergency preparedness is a money-loosing game, thus not in the interest of corporations and not the business of government.

It's The American Way.



 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some of the people who run corporations do have consciences though and aren't always thinking about the best way to fleece everyone. People who run corporations are just like the rest of us, some are good people, others are not, some will help because they can, others will only help if they get something in return.
People who run corporations are often sociopaths, and those who aren't are often tribal -- putting corporate interests over the public good.

Corporations exist to serve the interests of stockholders and officers. This is seen as a fiduciary duty. Failure to extract as much money as possible from the public is dereliction of duty -- and immoral.
Numerous companies worldwide have offered to produce at cost, or even donate machines free of charge. People can actually want to help others without thinking about 'what's in it for me' you know.
True, but mostly 'foreign' people or Americans who find themselves over a Public Relations barrel
 
People who run corporations are often sociopaths, and those who aren't are often tribal -- putting corporate interests over the public good.

Some are some aren't. As for the percentages, I've no idea.

Corporations exist to serve the interests of stockholders and officers. This is seen as a fiduciary duty. Failure to extract as much money as possible from the public is dereliction of duty -- and immoral.

This isn't actually true though. Firstly, there is nothing that defines shareholder interest as exclusively financial interest, so saying they have a legal and ethical duty to 'extract as much money from the public as possible' is false.

Secondly, 'extracting as much money from the public as possible' is short-term greed, and not necessarily the best way to run a company. There are companies that see ethical policy as protecting the long-term future of the business, and not simply as a reactive 'window dressing' form of PR.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Some are some aren't. As for the percentages, I've no idea.



This isn't actually true though. Firstly, there is nothing that defines shareholder interest as exclusively financial interest, so saying they have a legal and ethical duty to 'extract as much money from the public as possible' is false.

Secondly, 'extracting as much money from the public as possible' is short-term greed, and not necessarily the best way to run a company. There are companies that see ethical policy as protecting the long-term future of the business, and not simply as a reactive 'window dressing' form of PR.

Just a note, Augustus. Valjean is right about American corporations. Since around 1973, the standard dogma has been that corporations only have one legitimate goal -- to maximize value to shareholders. No less than the economist Milton Friedman described every other objective as sentimental nonsense. And, in the United States, shareholders have legal standing to sue any corporation that acts contrary to maximizing the value of their investments. If a company gives a dollar to charity and cannot justify it in terms of promoting its public image in order to increase profits, then its shareholders can sue that company just as if they had been robbed of that dollar.

On the other hand, you can set up a Class B corporation. Such corporations are allowed greater leeway in using their resources to promote "worthy causes". They are rare though. Folks don't usually prefer them when it comes to buying stocks. But all Class C corporations -- which is most of them -- can be sued as described above.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Also, there are studies of senior executives of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 corporations that have found a disproportionate number of them are sociopaths. I am not sure how reliable those studies are, but they do seem to jive with plenty of anecdotal evidence.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Just a note, Augustus. Valjean is right about American corporations. Since around 1973, the standard dogma has been that corporations only have one legitimate goal -- to maximize value to shareholders. No less than the economist Milton Friedman described every other objective as sentimental nonsense. And, in the United States, shareholders have legal standing to sue any corporation that acts contrary to maximizing the value of their investments. If a company gives a dollar to charity and cannot justify it in terms of promoting its public image in order to increase profits, then its shareholders can sue that company just as if they had been robbed of that dollar.

On the other hand, you can set up a Class B corporation. Such corporations are allowed greater leeway in using their resources to promote "worthy causes". They are rare though. Folks don't usually prefer them when it comes to buying stocks. But all Class C corporations -- which is most of them -- can be sued as described above.
Sure, but what behaviours by corporations maximise that shareholder value?Customer-facing brands are usually painfully aware that brand reputation is critical - and is easily damaged by behaviour seen as not socially responsible.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Also, there are studies of senior executives of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 corporations that have found a disproportionate number of them are sociopaths. I am not sure how reliable those studies are, but they do seem to jive with plenty of anecdotal evidence.
It's still a tiny amount I think. If it's 1% in the general population it's maybe 2% among executives. To me it looks as though the extraordinary levels of "cheating" among the CEO types of the world is due to being human in a system that is designed to maximise cheating.

Like people involved at the coalface of street drugs aren't naturally predisposed to violence. They just happen to have a livelyhood dependent upon willingness to get a bit 13th century when the situation arises.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It's still a tiny amount I think. If it's 1% in the general population it's maybe 2% among executives. To me it looks as though the extraordinary levels of "cheating" among the CEO types of the world is due to being human in a system that is designed to maximise cheating.

Like people involved at the coalface of street drugs aren't naturally predisposed to violence. They just happen to have a livelyhood dependent upon willingness to get a bit 13th century when the situation arises.

You might be right, but your comments don't at all jive with my memory of the studies I've read. However, I would have to go back and read them to be sure. Not something I have time for at the moment.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
You might be right, but your comments don't at all jive with my memory of the studies I've read. However, I would have to go back and read them to be sure. Not something I have time for at the moment.
Well, in the interests of disclosure, I haven't read any studies. I did watch a few documentaries on the subject and read John Ronson's Psychopath Test during a breif spurt of fascination with the subject a few years ago. I do recall a claim that a UK bank tailored it's hiring criteria to pick up people with psychopathic tendencies. Though I'm not sure how true or how widespread that practice is it makes sense given how truly godawful financial institutions are.
 
Top