If they expect to be able to reap the rewards when they cause an economic boom
they should be prepared to shoulder the burden when they cause an economic contraction. As should the Government.
( Kroney, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:19, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

'Should' implies a moral imperative
A rich banker/hedge fund manager could easily pay to have someone break into your house and carve "Fuck your moral imperative" into your dog.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:20, Reply)

I think we've found a way to sort Monty's finances.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:25, Reply)

also, it's rather difficult
to force a moral imperative, which is after all, a human psychological condition, onto a gigantic inanimate company. Which exists to make money. Why on earth should it behave morally? Even considering my status as one of Rswipe's socialist nemeses, I really do struggle to understand why people can't see that, or even bother to get worked up about it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:27, Reply)

Precisement
The only way to force morality onto big businesses is to round up all the top people from each company and execute them one by one until the rest agree to play fair.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:34, Reply)

No, even then
the survivors would still be legally obliged to try and make the most amount of money they could. The only way to stop a practice you might consider "morally wrong" is to regulate businesses to make it illegal for them to do it.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:46, Reply)

This.
and if you want to do that a) you have to make the penalties for breaking the law so severe that it wouldn't make economic sense to do it, otherwise they would do is carry on breaking the law and pay the fines whilst reaping higher profits, because it's an economic consideration not a moral one and b) Really, if you want to do that, probably best not to vote in a Tory administration, eh? Oh wait. Oh, you already did. Bad luck, there.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 15:05, Reply)

have you never heard of
"corporate social responsibility" ? each of these big businesses REALLY believes in it.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:42, Reply)

Exactly
They like to help Vietnamese children.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:44, Reply)

Oh, for sure. they earnestly believe in that. as long as it means they sell more shit.
It just bugs me that people think that companies should have responsibility, at least to anyone apart from their shareholders. Why should they?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:48, Reply)

Yes it does imply a moral imperative.
What exactly is the problem here?
( Kroney, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:53, Reply)

it's a company.
it exists to make money. you can't apply human moralisic values to faceless corporations.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:57, Reply)

Ah yes, that.
Corporations are run by humans, though. Also, it's not their corporate need to make money for their shareholders at question here, especially as they have spectacularly failed to do so given that they've created a massive economic slump. It's individual human greed that is at question, which is something that can be governed by moral codes.
( Kroney, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 15:04, Reply)

most major companies/shareholders came out of the slump really well off.
Check the FTSE value now to 4 years ago. Losses, what losses? Shareholders aren't usually in for the short haul. Boom and bust, that's how capitalism rolls. This isn't about individual human greed at all. At least, not in a overriding sense.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 15:09, Reply)