NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's decide which company we like best.

Everyone will be able to make up their own criteria, just make sure you mention them...social responsibility, profitability, innovation - you choose.

It has to be a for-profit organisation though.

And once you've done that, who is your favourite leader in business? And why?

My two nominations are:

Toyota - for being an enormously profitable and successful multinational corporation on the back of an innovative supply chain and manufacturing process, and providing affordable and relatively green cars to millions and millions of people.

and

Wendelin Wiedeking - for making Porsche into a real company, successful, profitable and expanding.

Novell - They have created some great new technologies with their SUSE Linux Enterprise and then opensourced them. Work on making things professional and usable and are quite good to the community.

Lets hope the decide that X.orgs OSS drivers need some work...http://209.85.48.10/3630/189/emo/shiftyeyes.gif

Underpants Gnomes Corp - Is also a leader. Employing hundreds with no visable buisness stratagy.

Walmart- Never shopped there, but they at least make the depreciating dollar worth more, and they're pretty ingenuous too. Also, leftists hate them.

Jeff Bezos- He only gets $1 salary, meaning he gets his gains from how well the company actually does. Also, great innovator.

Novell - They have created some great new technologies with their SUSE Linux Enterprise and then opensourced them. Work on making things professional and usable and are quite good to the community.

Lets hope the decide that X.orgs OSS drivers need some work...http://209.85.48.10/3630/189/emo/shiftyeyes.gif

Novell and Bill Gates have one thing in common, according to you.

1. Novell didn't invent SUSE Linux.
2. Bill Gates didn't write DOS 1.0, nor anything afterwards.

All corporations exist to leech off humanity.

All corporations exist to leech off humanity.
...by selling them stuff they enjoy, love and cherish. Yay!

Let's decide which company we like best.

Everyone will be able to make up their own criteria, just make sure you mention them...social responsibility, profitability, innovation - you choose.

It has to be a for-profit organisation though.

And once you've done that, who is your favourite leader in business? And why?

My two nominations are:

Toyota - for being an enormously profitable and successful multinational corporation on the back of an innovative supply chain and manufacturing process, and providing affordable and relatively green cars to millions and millions of people.

and

Wendelin Wiedeking - for making Porsche into a real company, successful, profitable and expanding.

innocent smoothies, their advertising campaign has completely suckered me.

1. Novell didn't invent SUSE Linux.
2. Bill Gates didn't write DOS 1.0, nor anything afterwards.
I didn't even imply either of those things.

Do you use Fedora?

For best business, do I only get one nomination? If not, here is my list:


Trader Joe's
ACE Hardware
Do It Best Corp.
Land O'Lakes
Welch Foods Inc.
Ocean Spray
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Sunkist Growers Inc.
True Value Corporation


If I only get one nomination, then it's Trader Joe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trader_Joe's). And here's why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trader_Joe's#Employees).


...by selling them stuff they enjoy, love and cherish. Yay!


All the while using their enormous economic and political power to buy politicians and harness the state for the purpose of leeching subsidies, ballouts, welfare, favorable legislation, and other forms of special treatment off the people and their wallets. All in the name of free enterprise no less. Boo!

All the while using their enormous economic and political power to buy politicians...
Talk to the politicians, then.

Talk to the politicians, then.

What will that change?

dudes i cant believe no one has mentioned the greatest of them all,
LIDL!!!!

our german masters of cheap food. multivitima drinks,chocolate and booze. its amazing.

Talk to the politicians, then.

Better to talk to, and blame, he who pulled the trigger and left his prints on the weapon (edit: that is, said politicians). Sorry, but "the devil made me do it" is a bullshit excuse. :)

What will that change?

Oh, well, don't ya know, if it weren't for those damn politicians I woulda never thought of acting like I did. It's their fault after all. They made me do it. I mean yeah, government is bad and evil. My business can't survive without it, but yeah...bad and evil.

Oh, well, don't ya know, if it weren't for those damn politicians I woulda never thought of acting like I did. It's their fault after all. They made me do it. I mean yeah, government is bad and evil. My business can't survive without it, but yeah...bad and evil.

It seems to me that as long as economic power is concentrated in a few hands, effective political power will be concentrated in a similar manner.

The reverse, of course, is true as well.

ExxonMobil: Massively successful energy company whose contrarian strategic decisions in the 1980's and 1990's paved the way for one of the most profitable businesses in the history of the energy industry. A major leader in energy technologies and a consistent deliverer on production targets and strategic accquisitions.

Boeing: Was able to not only rebuild itself following the 9/11 attacks and recession but also to thrive and gain significant market share over competitors despite the bankruptcy of several major airlines and the 700% rise in oil prices since 1999. Also leads the way in technological innovation in the airline industry .

It seems to me that as long as economic power is concentrated in a few hands, effective political power will be concentrated in a similar manner.

The reverse, of course, is true as well.

I just read the chapter in my elections and voting class textbook that describes the campaign finance process. The fact that government (at least how it currently exists today) exists of, for, and by the rich/business/economic elite should be self-evident. (edit: We may disagree on what to do about it, but as concerns this self-evident fact, we are in complete agreement)

(edit: We may disagree on what to do about it, but as concerns this self-evident fact, we are in complete agreement)

I no longer know what to do about it, but tolerating it is pretty far down on the list.

ExxonMobil: Massively successful energy company whose contrarian strategic decisions in the 1980's and 1990's paved the way for one of the most profitable businesses in the history of the energy industry. A major leader in energy technologies and a consistent deliverer on production targets and strategic accquisitions.


"ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 12 million acres off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels of crude.

"Getting at that oil wasn't pretty--ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President Jose Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s, helping to prolong Angola's ruinous civil war--but then the oil business is rarely pretty. "You kinda have to go where the oil is," deadpans Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil's chairman.

...

"Foreign oil companies have also come under heavy criticism in Angola, where Chevron (now ChevronTexaco) discovered offshore reserves in the late 1960s. Ties between foreign oil companies and the once-Marxist dos Santos regime have grown tighter as the size of discoveries has grown."

"Dangerous Liaisons," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/free_forbes/2003/0428/084.html

edit:

"There have been credible reports dating back several years that Exxon Mobil Corporation, along with its predecessor companies, Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Oil Indonesia (collectively "Exxon Mobil"), hired military units of the Indonesian national army to provide "security" for their gas extraction and liquification project in Aceh, Indonesia. Members of these military units regularly have perpetrated ongoing and severe human rights abuses against local villagers, including murder, rape, torture, destruction of property and other acts of terror. ExxonMobil apparently has taken no action to stop this violence, and instead, reportedly has continued to finance the military and to provide company equipment and facilities that have been used by the Indonesian military to perpetrate and literally cover up (in the form of mass graves) these criminal acts."

International Labor Rights Fund, http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/exxon/

-snip-

Oh, don't think for a second that I like Exxon; they're good at what they do, but they're pretty much morally and environmentally bankrupt. The best business is not the most moral business.

Jim's Bakery that was just replaced by a Starbuck's*


*this situation never actually happened, but is meant to give an idea

The best business is not the most moral business.

What criterion, then, is proper?

Oh, don't think for a second that I like Exxon; they're good at what they do, but they're pretty much morally and environmentally bankrupt. The best business is not the most moral business.

Just filling the most necessary role and office of advocatus diaboli :D

Freeport Mcmoran,

For proving that genocide is okay; provided you give the Clintons a little rub-a-dub-dub.

Haliburton:

Because the business of government is our business.

(oooh that's catchy).

What about In And Outs. They dont have it outside USA but I hear you can get anytype of fast food immaginable there.

Sorry, but "the devil made me do it" is a bullshit excuse. :)
Hey, you need to look at who's actually breaking the rules here. Business pays and takes money in exchange for goods and services. That's all they do, and nowhere is it really specified what sort of services those have to be. They'll do what is best for themselves, and that's the way things are supposed to be.

Politicians on the other hand are those who specifically set out to serve the public, who swear oaths of some sort and so on.

For a big corporation, this is little different to paying some teenager to wear a sign and stand outside the shop yelling ad slogans. The only difference is that unlike the teen, the politician isn't supposed to be accepting money in such a way.

This is my funny personal sense of right and wrong speaking though. I don't think "attempting to bribe" should be any sort of crime at all - the problem only ever occurs when an acceptance is given, so the fault should lie primarily with the bribee.

NL,

you raise a good point. Only duty of a corporation is to maximize returns for its stockholders. If giving political campaign contributions acheives this end, well then, it is doing no more than satisifying its obligations.

On the other hand, a politician is elected to represent his consitutents. If his judgment is swayed by the money he receives from business concerns, well then, he is breeching his duty.

There is no point in getting angry at 'big' money distorting the political process. Corporations do not vote. The blame should land squarely here on the politicians who do these deals. I'm sick of hearing how money distorts the political process. It is no more that a tacit addmission that our politicians are corrupt. Vote them out is the best answer as far as I am concerned.


It's irrelevant anyway, copper just went contango. Bad times ahead.

I'll be the first to say it, and won't bother to listen to the Linux fanboy anti-Microsoft bullshit in return.

Microsoft. Without them, we'd either be communicating via shitty Macs or via even shittier open source software. Alternatively, not at all.

Fortress America. A shell company with no assets. They set up and sell shares of their nothingness, and then use that money to buy an actual company with assets. Heh heh. Those Americans...

Fortress America. A shell company with no assets. They set up and sell shares of their nothingness, and then use that money to buy an actual company with assets. Heh heh. Those Americans...

We win at making money from nothing.

wewt

Hell Pizza, because they give me oral pleasure.

theyre r n0 g0b comqanys!!1 al busienses r avil anb want 2 3n5labv us and maek us work for them1! buy if i hab 2 cho53 ib probvabley go wit som3thng soros or naedr pwnz

Corporations do not vote.... Vote them out is the best answer as far as I am concerned.


No, they don't vote. They just generate and organize massive amounts of financial and other resources that candidates use to run and facilitate election. I would personally love to vote many politicians out of office. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for replacement candidates to generate the necessary financial support and fundraising needed to successfully seek election without already being dependent on the financial support of wealthy donors in the first place.


Hey, you need to look at who's actually breaking the rules here. Business pays and takes money in exchange for goods and services. That's all they do, and nowhere is it really specified what sort of services those have to be.


There is such a thing as helping to facilitate, or being accessory to, a crime. If the politician isn't supposed to be accepting money, but the corporation offers such money anyway, isn't the corporation facilitating or acting as accessory to political corruption? And again, "just vote the politicians out" is an insufficient response, when it is wealthy economic interests who are actively assisting in geting corrupt politicians elected by offering funding for said corrupt politicians in the first place.


If his judgment is swayed by the money he receives from business concerns, well then, he is breeching his duty.


This breach of duty having been facilitated, initiated, and funded by the corporation's offer in the first place.


They'll do what is best for themselves, and that's the way things are supposed to be.


Unfortunately, what's best for them is not always best for me. And this is a problem when they have far more influences and resources for pursuing their interests than I do mine. Self-interest only works properly in a state of free and equitable competition. And, of course, the purpose of facilitating and aiding corrupt politicians is to make the state of things as unfree and inequitable as possible.


For a big corporation, this is little different to paying some teenager to wear a sign and stand outside the shop yelling ad slogans.


Actually, it is completely different; the teen does not possess the legitimate monopoly on the use of force as does government. When wealthy economic interests help facilitate and fund political corruption, they are doing so as a means of influencing the use of the state's legitimate monopoly on the use of force (including favorable legislation), presumably for its own advantage.

This behavior, making use of the state's force for one's own gain, is completely contrary to the market competition symbolized by the teenager employed to show advertisements. And that businesses and corporations participate in, and help facilitate, such anti-market and anti-competitive behaviors in the first place demonstrates the charade that is the claim that they stand as examples of free enterprise.

Google

What about In And Outs. They dont have it outside USA but I hear you can get anytype of fast food immaginable there.

Only hamburgers, milk shakes, and french fries. Nothing else.

I'll be the first to say it, and won't bother to listen to the Linux fanboy anti-Microsoft bullshit in return.

Microsoft. Without them, we'd either be communicating via shitty Macs or via even shittier open source software. Alternatively, not at all.

because MS became a golliath on its own instead of piggy backing off a generous contract with IBM. If Billy wasn't there, someone else surely would have taken his spot.


but it is still rather obvious that you haven't used a Mac or FOSS as neither are ontirely void of merit as you moke them out to be.

Microsoft. Without them, we'd either be communicating via shitty Macs or via even shittier open source software. Alternatively, not at all.


At any rate, considering that that actual computer hardware, intial disk operating systems (a.k.a DOS), nevermind *nix, and graphical user interfaces (GUI) where all developed and marketed by companies other than Microsoft (in the case of the GUI, the Xerox Alto predates the first version of Microsoft Windows by at least 12 years) it is extremely unlikely that we would have had "not at all" if Microsoft never existed.

One thing Microsoft was absolutely vital for, however, was the creation of a global internet plagued by worms, viruses, and other security risks and hazards because they went to the trouble of cornering the market with a mind-numbingly insecure operating system, converting computers into consumer toys operated by people largely unqualified to do so in a secure manner, all in the name of "easy to use." Thanks Bill!

(...oh, and Linux Forever. :p :D )

There is such a thing as helping to facilitate, or being accessory to, a crime.
See, that's where we disagree. I can offer a police officer a bribe. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong...we'd be engaging in a mutually beneficial trade by free choice.
The problem is that he has external commitments, independent of me. He's violating the agreements that he's made previously, while I'm not.

This breach of duty having been facilitated, initiated, and funded by the corporation's offer in the first place.
But not actually having been caused. The reason there is a breach of duty is because the politican accepted the offer.

Actually, it is completely different; the teen does not possess the legitimate monopoly on the use of force as does government.
Which is why the teen has more freedom to engage in various trades than the politician.
And be careful with the distinction, we're not talking about government, we're talking about politicians, which are individuals. So far there is no government that is actually owned by a corporation, and so no corporation can directly use the government's monopoly on violence.

When wealthy economic interests help facilitate and fund political corruption, they are doing so as a means of influencing the use of the state's legitimate monopoly on the use of force (including favorable legislation), presumably for its own advantage.
Yes, that's correct. And I can't say that I necessarily agree with that. But I think it is absolutely 100% clear that the real crime is committed by the politician, not the company.

This behavior, making use of the state's force for one's own gain, is completely contrary to the market competition symbolized by the teenager employed to show advertisements.
So, the teenager wouldn't be trying to make use of the state's force for his own gain? Like insisting on being paid a legislated minimum wage?

As long as there is a government legislating there will be people trying to use the legislations to their advantage. That's not even a bad thing. Some are better at that than others, and there are different methods as well.

The problem occurs if the legislators themselves aren't working properly anymore. Like if they think they can accept bribes and renege on their previously made agreements.

And that businesses and corporations participate in, and help facilitate, such anti-market and anti-competitive behaviors in the first place demonstrates the charade that is the claim that they stand as examples of free enterprise.
Hehe, I doubt any of the big corporations that would actually be buying politicians have anything to do with the free market.

But then, the free market wasn't really what we were talking about. My initial claim was that big corporations sell people stuff that they want to have and generally increase their happiness. Corruption or not, they'd still be doing that on some level.

I'll be the first to say it, and won't bother to listen to the Linux fanboy anti-Microsoft bullshit in return.

Microsoft. Without them, we'd either be communicating via shitty Macs or via even shittier open source software. Alternatively, not at all.

Much agreed.

Hell Pizza, because they give me oral pleasure.

Monkeypimp gives you oral pleasure?

See, that's where we disagree. I can offer a police officer a bribe. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong...we'd be engaging in a mutually beneficial trade by free choice.
The problem is that he has external commitments, independent of me. He's violating the agreements that he's made previously, while I'm not.


If you know the officer has external commitments, you are knowingly participating in the violation of said commitments by offering the bribe. Had you not offered the bribe, the officer would have nothing to take and the external commitments would not be violated. I'm sorry, but you have a responsibilty to not knowingly aid in the commission of crime or other wrongdoing. One may as well argue that one isn't doing anything wrong by offering a lockpick set to a man in a ski mask outside a bank who is trying to open the lock on the door with a wooden toothpick, because said robber doesn't technically have to take it. But one knows damn well that he will take it.


But not actually having been caused. The reason there is a breach of duty is because the politican accepted the offer.


And if the offer wasn't made, there would be nothing to accept.


So far there is no government that is actually owned by a corporation, and so no corporation can directly use the government's monopoly on violence.


equivocation; we know perfectly well that the reason businesses and corporations offer financial support is because they expect politicians, who collectively exist as government, to return the favor with preferential treatment. Corporations don't have to directly own and control government in order to gain this benefit.


As long as there is a government legislating there will be people trying to use the legislations to their advantage. That's not even a bad thing. Some are better at that than others, and there are different methods as well.


So what of rhetoric detailing how government interference in the economic process is bad or immoral, typically put forward by those claiming allegiance with capitalism and associated entities?


But then, the free market wasn't really what we were talking about. My initial claim was that big corporations sell people stuff that they want to have and generally increase their happiness. Corruption or not, they'd still be doing that on some level.


Irrelevant. Providing goods and services does not excuse immoral behavior, including the facilitation and encouragement of political corruption.

Monkeypimp gives you oral pleasure?
No, due to the remoteness between Monkeypimp's and my own location, I have to settle for the administrations of one of Monkeypimps co-minions.

Monkeypimp gives you oral pleasure?

Fuck hell pizza.

Even though I still work there, and I'm going to get shit canned on the company dollar at the halloween party.