July 5, 2011 at 9:47 am
RML51 (7/5/2011)
I think a better solution is to limit campaign contributions. Eliminate all business, individual, and PAC contributions and have all parties receive equal, public, funding. Enforcing term limits may just create a revolving door of politicians still funded by, and under the control of, big business.
There are already limits in place but there are all manner of ways to get around that and any good politician knows it. So No, that is not a better solution.
We have to make "Public Service" an actual service to the public again instead of a career for these people.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
July 5, 2011 at 9:49 am
Let me point out another wrinkle: big international companies have international shareholders, and their opinion what is ethical and what is not, with whom to do business and with whom not, may (and often does) vary.
July 5, 2011 at 9:56 am
Revenant (7/5/2011)
Let me point out another wrinkle: big international companies have international shareholders, and their opinion what is ethical and what is not, with whom to do business and with whom not, may (and often does) vary.
Exactly.
And besides... which is more "evil": a business offering a politician some "contributions" for favorable legislation or a politician that will take the "contributions" and vote for favorable legislation because of it?
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
July 5, 2011 at 10:08 am
Revenant (7/5/2011)
Let me point out another wrinkle: big international companies have international shareholders, and their opinion what is ethical and what is not, with whom to do business and with whom not, may (and often does) vary.
Excellent point. The company I work for has rules for working with other countries. What may not be ethical in America is sometimes expected in other countries. We do what is customary for the country we are doing business in.
An example is that we cannot accept gifts; however, if in a country where not accepting the gift could be interpreted as an insult, we are required to accept the gift.
July 5, 2011 at 10:11 am
Revenant (7/5/2011)
Let me point out another wrinkle: big international companies have international shareholders, and their opinion what is ethical and what is not, with whom to do business and with whom not, may (and often does) vary.
True enough. Although some morallity may be self evident and universal much is pretty grey and hard to define. I guess that why Google adopted the "Do no evil" motto. Its pretty meaningless while still sounding awesome.
Francis
July 5, 2011 at 10:29 am
The number one goal of any publicly traded company is to make a larger profit every quarter.
It is currently legal in this country for public and private corporations to extort powerfull influence in the legislative process for the purpose of increasing profit. This power has been increasing for over 30 years despite the trillions wasted on legislation, reform, and regulation to decrease it.
Term Limits, a better sense of Ethics, etc... are just polictical buzz created by these entities and given to you as distractors from this base issue.
Lobbiest are no longer trying to run the Government in spite of the people they have suceeded.
Certain corporate Lobby firms have been sucessfull in removing the legistlation that used to regulate them. Some could be investigated and shut down for creating the legislative issues that charging clients to resolve. This is currently not possible. Positive
The US Legislative process should not be stagnated by the deseased entities that poisened our present day Government into paying the bonus checks of idiots too busy making money to worry about making sense.
Until the voice of the people, not the corporation or private intrest group, is once again the strongest voice heard by the peoles government and legislature we will continue to have government in spite of the peoples want's and needs instead of for them.
Don't elect candidates that have an obvious conflict of interest.
Don't keep in office those that have shown no ability to speak for the people they represent.
July 5, 2011 at 10:37 am
I think the issue should be wether a corporation's trade actually enables a corrupt government; not simply wether the government is corrupt in general.
Microsoft and Google enable citizens around the world to speak out about how they feel about their corrupt government. We see evidence of that every time we turn on the news this spring and summer.
Wal-Mart provides jobs for millions of people around the world. It might not be the best paying jobs, but it's better than anything their own local economy or government could or would care to provide.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
"Until the voice of the people, not the corporation or private intrest group, is once again the strongest voice heard by the peoles government and legislature we will continue to have government in spite of the peoples want's and needs instead of for them."
I would submit that until the "people" are sufficiently educated on the issues that affect them, the elected officials that represent them and the candidates that wish to replace them and then, following that, actually go to the polls and place a vote based upon that knowledge we will continue to have the government that you are referring to.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
July 5, 2011 at 11:33 am
Eric M Russell (7/5/2011)
Microsoft and Google enable citizens around the world to speak out about how they feel about their corrupt government. We see evidence of that every time we turn on the news this spring and summer.
Speaking out is great but none of it matters until you walk into the voting booth. If all that ever happens is that the same people get elected time after time nothing will change.
I'm reminded of the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
July 5, 2011 at 11:33 am
SanDroid (7/5/2011)
The number one goal of any publicly traded company is to make a larger profit every quarter. . . .
Usually, but not always. Publicly traded companies often have a controlling shareholder (or a voting agreement) that has a larger portfolio and manages individual companies for the maximum gain of the portfolio.
A classical example would be the legendary Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers who held companies like Oracle and directed them to support other companies in their portfolio, notably Amazon.com, for a long-term gain of the entire portfolio.
July 5, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Good article Steve! When it comes to ethics, I think Mr. Price Pritchett said it best: "You can't put someone else in charge of your morals. Ethics is a personal discipline." Profound, true, and unlike some of the other prior bloviating, very simply said. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
July 6, 2011 at 10:36 am
TravisDBA (7/5/2011)
Good article Steve! When it comes to ethics, I think Mr. Price Pritchett said it best: "You can't put someone else in charge of your morals. Ethics is a personal discipline." Profound, true, and unlike some of the other prior bloviating, very simply said. 😀
Thanks, and excellent quote. We each do have to be in charge of, aware of, and willing to live by our ethics.
July 6, 2011 at 11:07 am
Cisco, Google, Microsoft, and many non-tech companies have made investments in and done tremendous business with various governments around the world, often ignoring the social policies and issues of those governments. This is nothing new, however. When I was in college, there were many companies that did business with South Africa, regardless of apartheid, simply to turn a bigger profit.
I don't think it's necessarily unethnical to conduct a business transaction with a government that's been labeled (either by our own government, society, or just ourselves) as "suspect" or unethnical. The issue should be wether or not the business transactions facilitate some specific unethnical activity.
For example, I think that American companies should not be prohibited from selling computers and software to Cuba or even Iran and North Korea. Likewise there should be nothing wrong with an American company importing agriculture or oil from these same nations. However, I do think it is morally suspect and rightfully illegal to sell jet fighter components to Iran or North Korea, since those items have no civilian use and would only serve the military interests of nations that have threatened our allies.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply