Is it morally acceptable for companies to exploit the needs of people for profit?

Chase

Chase

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
I say this in regards to oil companies, check cashing places, and other businesses that exploit the needs of people and make huge profits doing so. For example, with oil companies, most people need their automobile to go to work and many are now forced to lower their standard of life because these businesses want more money in their pockets. Gas prices are getting so bad that it has even begun to affect law enforcement. That's not a good thing, I would imagine.

In any event, what are your thoughts on the matter?
 
You're leading the question a bit.

IMO OPEC exploits people more then oil companies.

It's a shite situation all around, I'm just hoping the greed fucks the oil companies over and everyone switches to some alternative energy source.
 
Except in a very few cases, there's "pros and cons" for every type of capitalistic endeavor.
Oil companies are faced with challenges getting the product, many legislative roadblocks that make their process inefficient, and limited sources for their raw materials.
Check cashing/payday loan places--yes, they charge ridiculous fees. However, where else can one borrow three hundred bucks virtually instantly, almost regardless of credit? Paying three hundred sixty bucks next week might be worth it, if the alternative is having one's car repo'd.
I'm in the middle--as a consumer, I want my money to stretch as much as possible, and to get stuff as cheap as possible; however, I am still "honest", while I might take advantage of deals, I don't "cheat" (I've seen many people here photoshop coupons or bitch when a store didn't take an expired coupon.) I play by the rules, but I try to make those rules work for me. But as an employee of a huge company, I want my company to do well too, because when it does well, I do well. (I fully understand that some companies aren't like that. My CEO gets paid tons more than I do, but if the company does well, all employees share financially in that success). We're facing challenges that are related and a consequence of the challenges everyone else is facing.
Long story short, I'm a capitalist, I want to make money and for my company and those I invest in to make money, but I also think that can and should be done legally (somewhat objective) and without being an a-hole (somewhat subjective). That said, I don't believe in the concepts of "excess profits" and "too much money" that we're hearing out politicos talk about--unless that money is obtained illegally or fraudulently, then the issue I have is with the method of obtaining it.
Oh, to answer the question: The question is inherently biased. If you mean "is it morally acceptable for companies to sell a product/service, legally obtained, for whatever price they want and can get", I'd say yes. If the question is, "is it morally acceptable for companies to screw and defraud their customers and employees", like Enron did with their number juggling, then no. You can be a profitable capitalist and still be moral/ethical.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Oh, to answer the question: The question is inherently biased. If you mean "is it morally acceptable for companies to sell a product/service, legally obtained, for whatever price they want and can get", I'd say yes. If the question is, "is it morally acceptable for companies to screw and defraud their customers and employees", like Enron did with their number juggling, then no. You can be a profitable capitalist and still be moral/ethical.[/quote]

I don't think it's that simple.

For example, I don't think cartels and monopolies should be allowed to exist. Especially for commodities.

I also disagree with price fixing (which would seem to be ok under your philosophy of 'it is morally acceptable for companies to sell a product/service, legally obtained, for whatever price they want and can get')
 
[quote name='dtcarson']If you mean "is it morally acceptable for companies to sell a product/service, legally obtained, for whatever price they want and can get", I'd say yes.[/QUOTE]Just about sums up my position.
 
The whole gas situation is this...


We consume more oil than the next three biggest consumers combined.

Fossil fuel is finite and never should have been the sole way (or close to it) to power a vehicle.

Brazil has laid the blueprint for getting off of foreign oil, yet our politicians (all of them Republicans and Democrats alike), haven't done shit to change anything because a lot of the people bitching about oil are the ones who are making money on the stock side of it.

Carmakers can improve fuel efficiency if they really want to. There were Geo Metro models in the mid 90's that got over 50 miles per gallon. They were bare bones with no amenities, but the fact is that it was done with out hybrid technology.

Electric cars, are probably going to be the best way to go one day, but big oil will never let it happen.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Wrong.[/QUOTE]

You ignore that fact that most of the country is rural and has no public transportation options for people to get to work. Population wise, maybe a higher percentage could take public transit since many are concentrated in metropolitan areas.

But even then, for people in suburbs it generally costs more and takes longer to take public transit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You ignore that fact that most of the country is rural and has no public transportation options for people to get to work. Population wise, maybe a higher percentage could take public transit since many are concentrated in metropolitan areas.

But even then, for people in suburbs it generally costs more and takes longer to take public transit.[/QUOTE]

I was raised on a farm in Southern Louisiana (until I turned 18), so no, I'm not ignoring rural areas.

And why are you so focused on public transit? Between walking, biking, public transit and relocating, I think the portion of America who has to use an automobile is a small minority. I'd be surprised if it exceeded 15%.
 
I'm not going to get into that with you. You're definition of "has to" is the typical tree hugger bullshit. People don't have time to have bikes, living close to jobs isn't always practical (husband and wife work in different locations etc). Living in cities sucks hairy fucking donkey balls, so fuck walking to work.

And I just don't care. Mother Nature can get on her knees and blow me, I'm going to drive wherever I want. And you hippy fucks can go choke on a dick and die.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I was raised on a farm in Southern Louisiana (until I turned 18), so no, I'm not ignoring rural areas.

And why are you so focused on public transit? Between walking, biking, public transit and relocating, I think the portion of America who has to use an automobile is a small minority. I'd be surprised if it exceeded 15%.[/quote]

According to the last census, the rural population is at almost 20%.

http://www.nemw.org/poprural.htm

I'd say the majority of those in rural areas need an automobile. I'd say at least half of those in non-rural areas (suburbs) need an automobile as well.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I'd say the majority of those in rural areas need an automobile. I'd say at least half of those in non-rural areas (suburbs) need an automobile as well.[/QUOTE]

And I'd say complete bullshit on both counts, especially the former. Living in rural areas doesn't mean you need a car. I only know a single person in Charenton, LA, the tiny southern town where I was raised, who needed to drive to work -- and that was my aunt who worked for the School Board 10 miles away. Everyone else would have gotten by just fine. Nearly everyone works very close to home.

More than half of America lives within 5 miles of where they work. That means over half of America could easily bike to work. Of the remaining minority, a portion could use mass transit and a portion could relocate closer to work. There would still be a portion who must drive, but it is a very small minority.

Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think the majority of Americans need to drive. I, personally, do not even know a single person here in Seattle who could not get by without their personal car. I do, however, know a lot of people who drive. That is what needs to be fixed.
 
[quote name='Koggit']And I'd say complete bullshit on both counts, especially the former. Living in rural areas doesn't mean you need a car. I only know a single person in Charenton, LA, the tiny southern town where I was raised, who needed to drive to work -- and that was my aunt who worked for the School Board 10 miles away. Everyone else would have gotten by just fine. Nearly everyone works very close to home.

More than half of America lives within 5 miles of where they work. That means over half of America could easily bike to work. Of the remaining minority, a portion could use mass transit and a portion could relocate closer to work. There would still be a portion who must drive, but it is a very small minority.

Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think the majority of Americans need to drive. I, personally, do not even know a single person here in Seattle who could not get by without their personal car. I do, however, know a lot of people who drive. That is what needs to be fixed.[/quote]

There are 300 million people in America and I guarantee that most rural people need to drive. At anyrate there is more than one reason why mass transit and even biking isn't feasible and making changes isn't nearly as easy for THE MASSES.

1. Mass transit isn't available to even half of america.

2. Have you ever tried biking a family of four where they need to go? Not everyone is a single person responsible only to themselves. What about grocery shopping for your family and trying to haul all of that on a bike?

3. Not every lives in warm climates like Louisiana as you did. I lived in North Dakota for 13 years and not once did I see a person use a bike in the winter time. I can guarantee you no one is going to walk in snow drifts to buy groceries either.

4. Even if "more than half live within 5 miles of work" that is still well over 100 million that don't.


Now that isn't to say a lot of people couldn't make the change to bikes or mass transit. I thought about it myself. Despite the fact I live less than five miles from work, and am single there is one problem...I have to take large cash deposits to the bank on a twenty mile round trip from work to bank and back to work.

There are more variables to peoples lives and the areas they live in that you just aren't taking into account.
 
[quote name='Koggit']And I'd say complete bullshit on both counts, especially the former. Living in rural areas doesn't mean you need a car. I only know a single person in Charenton, LA, the tiny southern town where I was raised, who needed to drive to work -- and that was my aunt who worked for the School Board 10 miles away. Everyone else would have gotten by just fine. Nearly everyone works very close to home.

More than half of America lives within 5 miles of where they work. That means over half of America could easily bike to work. Of the remaining minority, a portion could use mass transit and a portion could relocate closer to work. There would still be a portion who must drive, but it is a very small minority.

Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think the majority of Americans need to drive. I, personally, do not even know a single person here in Seattle who could not get by without their personal car. I do, however, know a lot of people who drive. That is what needs to be fixed.[/QUOTE]
Every assertion you make is CRAZY.
 
[quote name='Koggit']And I'd say complete bullshit on both counts, especially the former. Living in rural areas doesn't mean you need a car. I only know a single person in Charenton, LA, the tiny southern town where I was raised, who needed to drive to work -- and that was my aunt who worked for the School Board 10 miles away. Everyone else would have gotten by just fine. Nearly everyone works very close to home.

More than half of America lives within 5 miles of where they work. That means over half of America could easily bike to work. Of the remaining minority, a portion could use mass transit and a portion could relocate closer to work. There would still be a portion who must drive, but it is a very small minority.

Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think the majority of Americans need to drive. I, personally, do not even know a single person here in Seattle who could not get by without their personal car. I do, however, know a lot of people who drive. That is what needs to be fixed.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree that mass transit will become more of a factor for people living in the cities. However, as many people have pointed out, this is not an option for some people who live rurally. I also think relocating closer to work is probably unrealistic for most people. Biking to work, while a good idea, is also not realistic as most cities are not set up for mass amounts of bikers. I think realistically people will just have to drive less or invest in more fuel efficient cars. If there is less demand, prices for gas should go down. However, it will require people to make some changes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And I just don't care. Mother Nature can get on her knees and blow me, I'm going to drive wherever I want. And you hippy fucks can go choke on a dick and die.[/quote]

Troll alert!
 
Henry Ford once lost a derivitive shareholder (hereinafter "SH") because he chose to make less profits in order to provide better benefits and a better workplace to his employees (despit the fact he was an antisemite).

The SH's argued that the corporation would be better off and more profitiable if it didn't provide unecessary benefits to its employees when it did not need to and US Courts agreed.

It is a fundamental tenet of corporate law (and capitalism) that the "end-all-be-all" is profits for the SH, any other motivation is unnaceptable. Businesses must look after the SH before all else. They, by law, must prioritize their SH's pocketbooks above the workforce, above the environment, above the people, above the nation. A failure to do so may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by corporate officers and directors and subject them to personal liability to the corporation.

For good or bad, it is what it is. There are pros and cons of having this system in place, and it is up to you to decide whether it is good or not.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Henry Ford once lost a derivitive shareholder (hereinafter "SH") because he chose to make less profits in order to provide better benefits and a better workplace to his employees (despit the fact he was an antisemite).

The SH's argued that the corporation would be better off and more profitiable if it didn't provide unecessary benefits to its employees when it did not need to and US Courts agreed.

It is a fundamental tenet of corporate law (and capitalism) that the "end-all-be-all" is profits for the SH, any other motivation is unnaceptable. Businesses must look after the SH before all else. They, by law, must prioritize their SH's pocketbooks above the workforce, above the environment, above the people, above the nation. A failure to do so may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by corporate officers and directors and subject them to personal liability to the corporation.

For good or bad, it is what it is. There are pros and cons of having this system in place, and it is up to you to decide whether it is good or not.[/quote]

If you saw how board of directors work (exchanging favors with CEOs) and mutual funds are run (insider info and the fees that are charged) you'd see the "shareholder comes first" myth for what it really is.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you saw how board of directors work (exchanging favors with CEOs) and mutual funds are run (insider info and the fees that are charged) you'd see the "shareholder comes first" myth for what it really is.[/quote]

If you had taken Business Organizations and Secured Transactions in lawschool, and read all the case law I have and books like "Smartest Guys in the Room" (about Enron), you'd know that everything I said was true.

I didn't say thats the way it is de factor, only de jure; rather my post addressed the state of corporate law. Whether it's followed is dubious and is also why Sarbanes Oxley, 10(b)(6) and derivitive suits abound.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']If you had taken Business Organizations and Secured Transactions in lawschool, and read all the case law I have and books like "Smartest Guys in the Room" (about Enron), you'd know that everything I said was true.

I didn't say thats the way it is de factor, only de jure; rather my post addressed the state of corporate law. Whether it's followed is dubious and is also why Sarbanes Oxley, 10(b)(6) and derivitive suits abound.[/quote]

As you infer - the law and the real world are often miles apart.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you saw how board of directors work (exchanging favors with CEOs) and mutual funds are run (insider info and the fees that are charged) you'd see the "shareholder comes first" myth for what it really is.[/QUOTE]

Considering the fact that you only get to be a boardmember if you own a crapload of shares, this "myth" seems to be a reality and not so mythical.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering the fact that you only get to be a boardmember if you own a crapload of shares, this "myth" seems to be a reality and not so mythical.[/quote]

Good point - you completely understood my entire message about how CEOs earn every penny of their salaries and incentive packages. Cutting company deals with law firm members, product suppliers, and other friendly interests on the BoD in exchange for more pay is hard work. Even though the BoD may not represent the majority of shares, they are the guys who individually own the most stock and therefore deserve the most kickback in terms of money and favors - the bunch of John Q.s who bought into the stock as investors or employees are just small fish who should be glad to get whatever dividend crumbs fall on the table - and employees should be grateful for whatever charity management is willing to part with.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']There are 300 million people in America and I guarantee that most rural people need to drive. At anyrate there is more than one reason why mass transit and even biking isn't feasible and making changes isn't nearly as easy for THE MASSES.

1. Mass transit isn't available to even half of america.

2. Have you ever tried biking a family of four where they need to go? Not everyone is a single person responsible only to themselves. What about grocery shopping for your family and trying to haul all of that on a bike?

3. Not every lives in warm climates like Louisiana as you did. I lived in North Dakota for 13 years and not once did I see a person use a bike in the winter time. I can guarantee you no one is going to walk in snow drifts to buy groceries either.

4. Even if "more than half live within 5 miles of work" that is still well over 100 million that don't.


Now that isn't to say a lot of people couldn't make the change to bikes or mass transit. I thought about it myself. Despite the fact I live less than five miles from work, and am single there is one problem...I have to take large cash deposits to the bank on a twenty mile round trip from work to bank and back to work.

There are more variables to peoples lives and the areas they live in that you just aren't taking into account.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

That's why I get so pissed off and naive extreme environmentalists like Koggit. There just as bad as the extreme people on the other side of the issue--those driving Hummers around everywhere with only themselves in the car.

Most people need to drive. But everyone could probably drive less. But it's hard for those outside of cities, especially those with kids etc., to get buy without a car. Public transit isn't available a lot of places and costs more and takes longer than driving in a lot of places.

Biking isn't practical most of the time--fine if you're pretty close to work and the weather is nice. But can't do it in the winter, if you live further from work (I don't know anyone who lives within 5 miles of work--neither my friends who live around me in the DC area or family/friends in rural WV). And it doesn't work for taking the kids to sporting games, bringing home groceries for the whole family etc. Even in the city, many times there aren't bike lanes and biking is dangerous.

The solution is to try to minimize driving, consolidate errands into one trip, buy more fuel efficient cars when you can etc. People aren't going to stop driving as it's necessary in many cases and even when not as long as it's the cheapest and most convenient way to get where you're going people are going to do it.

Koggit could get his dumbass tax to put gas at $10 a gallon and I'm still going to drive to work. 8 miles is too far to bike, the weather in the DC area sucks--too hot in the summer, cold and rainy in the winter, rainy in the spring. Early fall would be the one time of year you could do it more consistently weather-wise. Even then I'd still need a car for my bi-monthly grocery stock ups, visiting my friends 20-30 miles away a couple times a week etc.

It just comes down to how dire you think the environmental issues are and how much you're willing to sacrifice I guess. I don't think they're that dire, and I put myself first always so I'm not willing to sacrifice. I recycle, use energy efficient lightbulbs, turn the thermostat up/down when not at home etc. etc. But when it comes to driving, I'll never shift to mainly biking, using public transit etc. I'll just buy reasonably fuel efficient cars and try to minimize trips--and even that is more to save money on gas than to save the environment.
 
All of you seem to forget, or don't realize that your driving to work and back is only for you slaves who work for other people. Your morning and afternoon commute, with all of your freeway clogging drone counterparts, is really only a fraction of all the miles driven on America's roads.

The UPS driver who drives 16 hours a day, the Mail delivery, semi-traffic, your local plumber, supervisor, construction manager, sales rep, snow plow, salt truck, dirt road grader, trash hauler, tractor, and every delivery method that gets your retail product or commodity to it's store shelf or your house from a distributor takes fuel to burn, and does so on a 24/7 schedule by sea, rail, land, and air - and not just at 8:00 and 5:00 every day.

So, saving gas by riding your bike to work, while a noble effort, pales in comparison to all other traffic and fuel consumption that is necessary for our way of life to continue as we know it and all take for granted. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's a fool's errand to think consumer level conservation will change anything - neither the demand for, nor the price of gasoline will be affected by your efforts.
 
That's definitely true. Daily commuters aren't a huge part of the pollution problem. All the stuff you listed is a part of it. Electricity production is even bigger.

There are better ways to save the environment than just driving less. Reducing commuter traffic wouldn't make that much of a dent in the problem. There are bigger fish to fry on this issue.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']All of you seem to forget, or don't realize that your driving to work and back is only for you slaves who work for other people.[/quote]

Never thought I'd see you refer to the modern working class as "slaves".

You're usually on some anarcho-capitalist rant about how American liberals are ruining a mythical libertarian paradise, rich people deserve every penny they earn, and the middle-class are just a bunch of lazy inefficient whiners who exist only to cash in on govt grants.
 
Arguments suck here because arguments rarely exist.

Opinions exist and, occasionally, facts are presented.

I wish there was an entrance exam to post here, similar to an LSAT, to weed out the idiots who just don't understand what an argument is and have illogical deductions from fact.
 
Well, they are. They're slaves to their mortgage, kids, and health insurance, property and income taxes, and slaves to their procedural mediocrity. The most binding of their chains is the Government, and the "left" who have determined that everyone must be their brother's keeper in order to be moral. It's strangely similar to every organized religion ever invented.

And yes, I think rich people are entitled to their money, but that doesn't mean I think they deserve it. I know plenty of people who make a shit-ton of money who have no concept of it's value, nor have ever really had to work hard to achieve it. And I know plenty of moral, hardworking poor people who certainly deserve a better lot in life. However, I would never assume it's MY job to determine who is deserving of gain and loss - and I consider anyone who wants to claim that position as my enemy. That type of power over people is an evil employ, regardless of any number of good intentions.

And I'd never accuse todays "Liberals" of coming close to resembling Libertarian philosophy. I prefer to refer to them as "The Left," who have every intention of expediently delivering us to totalitarianism as "The Right."
 
[quote name='Koggit']Arguments suck here because arguments rarely exist.

Opinions exist and, occasionally, facts are presented.

I wish there was an entrance exam to post here, similar to an LSAT, to weed out the idiots who just don't understand what an argument is and have illogical deductions from fact.[/QUOTE]

Not all of us go to a "tier 1" school like you do. ;)
 
[quote name='Koggit']Arguments suck here because arguments rarely exist.

Opinions exist and, occasionally, facts are presented.

I wish there was an entrance exam to post here, similar to an LSAT, to weed out the idiots who just don't understand what an argument is and have illogical deductions from fact.[/QUOTE]

Funny, that sums up almost every post I've read of yours.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Arguments suck here because arguments rarely exist.

Opinions exist and, occasionally, facts are presented.

I wish there was an entrance exam to post here, similar to an LSAT, to weed out the idiots who just don't understand what an argument is and have illogical deductions from fact.[/quote]

I don't mean any real harm, but I have to post this man...

picardfacepalmlt5.jpg
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering the fact that you only get to be a boardmember if you own a crapload of shares, this "myth" seems to be a reality and not so mythical.[/QUOTE]
That's not true. Board members are selected for a variety of reasons and share % is waaaaaaaay down the list. They (professional board members) are on the whole an incestuous and nepotistic group that cluster together.

Just sayin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top