This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is it socially acceptable to complain but not talk up successes?
It seems perfectly acceptable to complain (at least here in the United States) - even with perfect strangers but sharing successes, even with friends, seems to be met with a kind of coolness.
Is it bad form to share a success even when not trying to build up one's ego but simply attempting to share good things going on in one's life?
Is this "bragging" only considered a social faux pas when it is done in a competitive society or is it equally frowned upon in collaborative one?
Do you believe that sharing successes should be more socially acceptable?
Why or why not?
Zac Capen
I also think failure is outright demonized in our culture. If you fail once, you seem to be deemed immediately incompetent and there's no such thing as a beginner. You are forever damned until you find some awesome form of redemption. Sometimes I think we only listen to successful people who have stories of failure and ignore failures who have stories of self fulfillment. But that's just me.
David Hamilton 50+
I don't think the traditional approach is invalid, but I think there is room for a bit of Grandpa Simpson wisdom in therapy and counselling. Maybe the people looking for help are a bit too fragile.
Paul Redling
Kanisk Chakraborty
Same thing here, although no food chain involved because we've grown far ahead than that. The people of this generation are bombarded with preconceived notions, stereotypes and the likes, which they must fall into because that's how it all "works". They are born insecure. Therefore, sharing different kinds of insecurities, such as ones regarding to failure, is perfectly acceptable to almost anyone-irrespective of a competitive, or collaborative society. People say they don't, but most of them, when hearing about others failures, actually feel good inside. Because that is how we are programmed to accept others failures-it gives us the false satisfaction on thinking of ourselves as being higher on the "chain" than them.
Similarly, when we hear about others success, our natural reaction is to tell them to stop because it is playing on our insecurities. In a competitive work environment, if one gets the promotion and the other doesn't, he/she starts to get flooded by the idea of being worse than the other-and that angers them. In a collaborative environment, if one person has better achievements, then the other, even though not angry, does feel some amount of regret that he/she was not the one to achieve.
Since these characteristics are innate, it is hard for change to be quick. However, as the population advances further with their open minds and changing social norms, everything will soon fall into place, hopefully.
Frank Clayton
Kanisk Chakraborty
However, some of them are insight from my own trials and errors. I have seen that when people share their failures, deep down inside, I have this feeling that I am more successful than them because I haven't failed yet. If not that, I certainly get a confidence boost.
Similarly, when someone tries to rub in their success stories, at times, I find myself agitated, but maintain my composure. During collaborative school projects, if the other student does something that makes us stand out, then I'm happy, but again, deep down, I feel "what if I was the one who thought of that".
David Hamilton 50+
People should talk about the things they're proud of, and the things they enjoy. "Quit yer belly achin melon head" Grampa Simpson.
Debra Smith 200+
David, I think we feel that we need to talk about it because we hope that SOMEONE has the peices of the puzzle that we are missing and thus we hope that there is an answer - a way out of unhappiness.I think we sense that we have been happy and want to be so again.
Another reason might be that we have seen some people keep it all in and sink under the load. We do not want that for ourselves or for each other.
David Hamilton 50+
Kent Spencer 10+
Colleen Steen 500+
Complaining seems to be a popular theme these days in some western cultures, which boggles my mind! The USA, for example, is one of the most abundant countries in our world, and we have one of the highest rates of suicide, drug and alcohal use and anti depressant use.
We often hear people searching for happiness, contentment, peace and harmony, and also complaining about scarcity. Not having enough...time...possessions...money...seem to be popular mantras these days. I have my own theory that people may feel more "valuable", in a way, if s/he is so busy and does not have enough time, energy, money, etc.? Does this concept reflect the idea of being very productive and not acknowledged?
A person once chose me as her mentor. She always felt like she did not have enough time and money. Her basic question was...how could she get over these feelings of scarcity? Throughout several sessions, she complained about not having "enough". I consistantly asked the questions...have you ever been without food? Clothing? A home, etc. Her answer was always no...she had a nice home, nice cloths, plenty of food, a good job, etc.
I did not express sorrow at her feeling of scarcity, and continued to ask the questions. Also, asking why do you want to hold onto this feeling of scarcity? How does it serve you? She finally decided I was not the mentor for her, which was fine for both of us. I was not willing to give her sympathy or approval for her need to be in a victim role, and she was not willing to explore why she chose to stay in the victim role.
My friends, family and I LOVE to share successes, and we realize that what is a success for one, is also a success for the whole. I believe that sharing ALL of who and what we are is a healthy choice, and to do so, means we need to be comfortable with ourselves and those we choose to share information with. It's all about balance:>)
Frank Clayton
Colleen Steen 500+
One of my successes, in my humble perception, is exploring the life adventure always...all ways...including with communication...which I LOVE!
I also observe that people sometimes confuse sympathy with compassion and empathy. I believe that compassion/empathy is part of love, while sympathy is more from fear. I agree that to sympathize with people keeps them in the victim role, and reinforces the idea that they are incapable of doing something different. I also see each person as whole and complete, with the opportunity and capability to make many choices in this life experience. Many people have given up the idea that they have choices, and the ability to orchestrate their lives in many ways. I also LOVE helping to empower people to remember. Thanks for your comment as well:>)
Debra Smith 200+
Are you able to direct me in terms of Rockefeller too? Thank you , David.
robert hensley
Debra Smith 200+
I welcome your suggestion and you! I will look up Ida!
Robert Winner 50+
If you got promoted there is going to be both good and bad feeling at the office. The promotion party is usually held off site with your friends (usually not other office people). Your superiors will acknowledge your promotion and welcome you aboard at a staff meeting or in the conference room. All eyes will be on you to see your initial reactions and if you maintain professionalism and maybe a little humility. Your demeaner will influence how you are precieved in the near future. Never ... never toot your own horn. Everyone knows you got promoted you do not have to tell them. Almost everyone wants to be the top dog .. the trick is to be the heir and still be accepted and acknowledged as earning the right to lead.
Summary: I do not care for a poor loser ... but ... I cannot abide a overbearing winner. So my answer is "Everything in moderation" ... In both discussions and successes.
All the best. Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
Good winners are gracious and most often allow their labours to speak for themselves.
Matthew Stephenson
Debra Smith 200+
Josh S
Again i may be an anomaly, but i think it is socially acceptable already, but if in your experience it is not so, i hope it becomes more acceptable! Just a suggestion, maybe your friends may not be as friendly and thats ok, just the way they are. Maybe you can get more happy and supportive people in your life!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
pat gilbert 50+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
I believe that if we are a selfish society, then we would all, as individuals, be victims of our shared selfisness at some point.
However, there is a way of being proud of our achievements without being entraped by pride. And there is a way of critising that is devoid of arrogance.(complaining doesn't do much good).
Fritzie Reisner 100+
The issue with sharing successes is that it is important to be attentive to your audience. When you share successes with people who have been trying similar things and not succeeding, it may make them feel worse about their own lives than if you had kept your success to yourself. And they may suspect that you realize this. If you worked really hard and got a D in a class at school, how would it make you feel to hear others joking about their As and how easy the class was? If a woman has been trying for years through fertility treatments to have a baby, how do you think it makes her feel when another declares how easy that has been once again for her?
(Note, the first doesn't want a baby as a way to compete with anyone) Another situation that puts people off is when someone seems to be bragging about something truly ordinary as if it were really special. The example that first comes to my mind is someone in a community of which I was a part who was pretty nonstop about praising his creativity and depth of thought, neither of which claim gave any appearance of validity. It gets annoying after awhile- that relentless public self-affirmation or fishing for compliments and the more so when it is part of a marketing pitch.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
it is a recurring pattern in our world view to address success to something else other than talent or work. rich men must have been cheated, violated law or ethics. the idea that "money creates money" also comes here. it seems to be very convenient to people to treat success as a result of circumstances, luck, and anything that is not achievable and also unfair.
our self consistency requires to deny the link between effort and success, and so it is also natural that bragging about success is antisocial. either you brag about luck, or the fruits of your immoral behavior. if you act socially and morally, you can not possibly be more successful than others. success is immoral.
we are destroying our own future out of stupid self defense. how lame of us. this should be changed somehow.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i could pull examples from the last week's ted conversations. ask anyone how a rich man became rich, and see the answers.
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
btw carnegie is an even more baffling example. isn't there a building called carnegie hall? since when we name buildings after blood sucking vampires? is there a hitler hall? or a charles manson hall?
David Hamilton 50+
Andrew Carnegie
Things are not black and white Debra. A man can build the most impressive steel industry in the world, and one of the largest charitable trusts in history... and still do horrible things. It is incredibly one sided to paint him a monster. It is also incredibly one sided to paint him a hero.
Like most men in business, he was cut throat in dealing with his competitors. He built one of the largest unions in the world, and paid people well, so they undercut him on price, and he couldn't sell his product. He had to shatter a union he was very proud of in order to continue doing business and that led to violence, which was tragic.
None of it would have happened, if, for example, the government had supported the rights of private unions. Instead, sheriffs deputies, came to guard the towers. There are several ways Carnegie, Frick, the government, and the union could have settled this dispute non violently, but to call Carnegie a murderer is incredibly unfair.
I love Howard Zinn, and that sounds like something he'd say, but he admits his bias. He feels history is always told from Carnegies perspective, so he writes from the perspective of an average guy at the works... It's an artistic and usefull perspective, but it is not any more accurate than the perspective of Carnegie himself.
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
since when hungry men can steal, destroy or damage property, stop people from moving around? i'm quite sure we don't accept that. hunger is not an excuse to commit crime. or you suggest that hungry people also can break into homes? or you suggest that carnegie is somehow responsible for their misery? how exactly? don't you think that showing that link is important? you cannot just suggest such an important factor.
Debra Smith 200+
Homestead Strike
Pro-union pamphlet about the strike
Date
July 6, 1892
Location
Homestead, Pennsylvania, United States
Result
Setback of workers' rights until early 1930s when Federal Government recognized labor unions
Belligerents
Pennsylvania steel workers
Pinkerton National Detective Agency
Commanders and leaders
unknown
Henry Clay Frick
Strength
~6,500
300
Casualties and losses
9 killed
11 Wounded
7 killed
12 Wounded
The Homestead Strike was an industrial lockout and strike which began on June 30, 1892, culminating in a battle between strikers and private security agents on July 6, 1892. The battle was the second largest and one of the most serious disputes in U.S. labor history second only to the Battle of Blair Mountain. The dispute occurred at the Homestead Steel Works in the town of Homestead, Pennsylvania, between the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (the AA) and the Carnegie Steel Company. The final result was a major defeat for the union and a setback for efforts to unionize steelworkers.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
do you see the difference? because if not, i think we really can stop here. i'm not willing to conduct a discussion with anyone who defends violent criminal behavior, and condemns the attempt to counter it.
Debra Smith 200+
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)
Part of a series on
Organized labour
The labour movement[show]
Labour rights[show]
Trade unions[show]
Labour parties[show]
Academic disciplines[show]
v ·
t ·
e
(Pub.L. 80-101, 61 Stat. 136, enacted June 23, 1947, informally the Taft-Hartley Act) is a United States federal law that monitors the activities and power of labor unions. The act, still effective, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and became law by overriding U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto on June 23, 1947; labor leaders called it the "slave-labor bill"[1] while President Truman argued that it was a "dangerous intrusion on free speech,"[2] and that it would "conflict with important principles of our democratic society,"[3] Nevertheless, Truman would subsequently use it twelve times during his presidency.[4] The Taft–Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; informally the Wagner Act), which Congress passed in 1935. The principal author of the Taft–Hartley Act was J. Mack Swigert[5] of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Debra Smith 200+
pat gilbert 50+
What you need is a shot of H.M.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qei_ccdgTMU
Krisztián Pintér 200+
John Dunbar 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
take this example above. a fact is that the strikers shot first. the propaganda is that "carnegie killed his own workers".
about that pedestrian metaphor. we all are simple pedestrians in all or all but a few fields. unless you have the ego to claim to understand everything, it is not an insult.
Debra Smith 200+
What evidence do you have that I am out of words? Wait that was a direct question and it has been observed that they are seldom answered. Must be in the Austrian Economics playbook. Funny, I seem to remember more than a few compliments that I sent your way upon which you do not comment. NICE!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
John Dunbar 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Is that an insult too?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
so your son graduated as an economist. now that is a waste of time and money.
Debra Smith 200+
Murser for hire is considered murder by most civilized people. Other than that the rest really deserves to be ignored because one always should ignore snit fits by adults.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
"OMG Krisztian! That was th emost impressive grab for the moral high ground that I have seen in years!"
David Hamilton 50+
It is very dangerous to demonize success, and as much as I think Debra would disagree, many Western Cultures, are demonizing success right now. Many people do assume that wealth has been earned in an immoral way.
The problem is that, in some countries, America for example, people should think that. We've never demonized success in this country, we loved the wealthy for generations, they built amazing and wonderful industries that we could all take advantage of...
What has Wal Mart done for society, to be worth billions of dollars? It's just a giant warehouse, with no customer service, no speciallized knowledge, and a giant 0% interest loan from the fed that makes them multiply like rabbits...
What has McDonald's done for society, to be worth billions of dollars? The only thing they really make a profit on is corn syrup water, but they have a giant no interest loan from the fed, that makes them multiply like rabbits.
More rich people, are useless, then ever before in this country. It's not because of capitalism either. That's why you see so much anger from Americans at the rich. Carnegie was only a millionaire, and he built giant charitable trusts... What have the billionaires done for us?
We have billionaires now... Shouldn't we have something like the Empire State building, but under water, or flying, with a hotel, and leet restaurant on it? Shouldn't billionaires in America be building the most beautiful and gravity defying sculptures and functional buildings humanity has ever seen?
Every time you eat at a chain restaurant, you're saying "Screw a local chefs dreams."
Krisztián Pintér 200+
David Hamilton 50+
I think an empire state building underwater would make a fortune, and be a huge tourist destination... Eat seafood as a great white shark passes by. The design for the one in Abu Dhabi before the economic collapse, 310 million dollars... Why can't Buffet or Gates build one of those in the Marianas trench... It will pay for itself and create insanely skilled technical jobs. There could be a research bay... It would be an awesome business.
The tallest building in the world should be a giant glass warehouse farm feeding Tokyo or New York... There's money to be made. Land in the city is still expensive, build the worlds tallest apartment building... Something.
Putting Sam Walton in the same category as Carnegie is heresy. One man built the most efficient, and effective steel mines ever constructed, which requires incredibly delicate instrumentation, skilled labor, and creates objective value for an economy.
Sam Walton decided that every general store on earth should look exactly the same, and give no preference to local products... That's the least creative, and most destructive thing to happen to small business in history.
McDonald's, decided that every city on the planet has to have a burger that tastes exactly the same as every other cities burger. That's not the same thing as perfecting the assembly line, and paying people a sustainable wage.
People who actually build things and make unique products should be revered. Government sponsored corporations killing innovation in food, electronics, music, and television, should not be revered.
robert hensley
"it is a recurring pattern in our world view to address success to something else other than talent or work. rich men must have been cheated, violated law or ethics"
The problem is that the drive for success, most generally achieved through hard work and talent, puts a spot light on the strength of an “edge”. However much hard work and talent (by themselves) do offer an edge, this drive leads to the search for more edges. Many times (but not always) these edges are found by cheating, violating laws, and/or stretching/bending/breaking ethical conduct. Much of this exact kind of conduct has led to many of the laws we have today, because people like to put a spin on ethics when it benefits their cause.
Men like Carnegie, Jay Gould, and Rockefeller only cared about ethics to the extent the law required (and in some cases not even that far), so new laws were written to keep them in line (against which they fought tooth and nail). They were hard working, talented, and successful; but they let it get away from them and their ethical concerns were, in many cases, for none other than themselves and their business (as reflected in the laws and battles that they ensued).
Krisztián Pintér 200+
robert hensley
What statement is this in reference to?
“what if it is not related to money?”
If you take away money as a motivation to commit crimes, crimes will still occur-- and likely in all ranks of people. But, we are talking about crimes that are motivated by money (White-collar crimes) which are generally executed by intelligent and talented criminals (the best of which don’t get caught).
These crimes are often committed by highly motivated, hardworking, and talented individuals. That is not to say these are inherently bad people. But (“minus the psychopath of course”), their drive for an edge has led them to walk a thin line and ask the question, “how thin of a line can I walk,” often not realizing themselves that they have already crossed it.
“what if rich people commit more crimes just because their crimes are more visible?”
Do rich people commit more crimes? I doubt that’s true, since the rich are such a small percent of the world’s population. Do you mean per capita (perhaps)? or maybe for White-collar crimes alone? Even in regard to these two I would question the statement.
Rich people are still people. But, people are subject to corruption. A quote from animal farm says, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even though that’s really not the whole picture, it does represent a history of many crimes.
*edit, that quote is originally from John Dalberg-Acton, and is "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Krisztián Pintér 200+
now about power. money does not come with power either. it is a common myth. if i have a factory, i'm in power only over the hardware itself, like building and machine. but what good that power gives me? other than being able to produce stuff, nothing. i still don't have power over a single individual. i can hire them on mutual consent, and can offer them to buy my products, that is all. unless we have politicians in the picture, i have no power at all.
that's why i'm upset when i hear things like "XY controls 90% of the market". actually, XY has a 90% market share, but does not control it in any way.
robert hensley
No we can not agree based on this, that is not sound logic. Just because criminals exist without money, does not mean that money doesn't cause criminals too (and we know it actually does).
"it is a common myth. if i have a factory, i'm in power only over the hardware itself, like building and machine. but what good that power gives me? other than being able to produce stuff, nothing. i still don't have power over a single individual."
This is not true either, especially in an economy like this. Ideally there may be no power over the individual, but in practice this is not true. While someone is employed at a company, their boss does have certain "powers" over them. And, if that person needs that job (for what ever reason) they have to deal with that until it changes. Powerful companies that control a large part of the market can manipulate other peoples lives and the economy in a very real way, which is why we have antitrust laws to try and protect against these things (Laws that came into effect to stop men like Rockefeller from unethical business practices). I'm beginning to think you don't have much knowledge about history if you take the position that people with companies (or even just control over large amounts of money) don't have power over people.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
every power the boss has is due to the contract they agreed upon, not any money
"companies that control a large part of the market"
circular argument. if they control the market, surely they control the market. but as i said, controlling the market needs something other than money. it needs aggression, coercion. companies can't do that. this coercion comes from the state, and antitrust laws are part of it. without the state and its laws, no company can control any market.
robert hensley
You're right, money is an inanimate object and can do no action on it's own. However, the drive to acquire money can cause people to do terrible things and we have a name for this it's called “White-collar crime”.
"companies can't do that. this coercion comes from the state, and antitrust laws are part of it. without the state and its laws, no company can control any market."
Companies can't do what, coerce? Of course they can, why do you think that we have the laws we do, it's because companies have done these things.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
companies can't make laws. only the state can make laws. if you don't like laws, don't blame companies, blame the state
robert hensley
We arn't talking about more or less crime. You seem to be arguing that the wealthy don't commit crimes at all.
"companies can't make laws. only the state can make laws. if you don't like laws, don't blame companies, blame the state"
Actually they can, ever heard of ALEC? Only the state can put laws it into effect, and of course the state has responsibilities, but to give no blame to the companies is irresponsible.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what is that attitude in many people? we already have to culprit, and it is certain government officials. they make harmful laws, they can be bribed, they use the power to their own interest. but instead of dealing with the issue the best we can, many people tries to find excuses for the govenrment, and blame those that tries to benefit from the situation.
corporations can't control anything without the help of the state. stop that help, and we are fine.
robert hensley
So you do agree that wealth can increase criminal behavior (if only just a little) and this is true it can, but “can” does not mean “will”. Still, it’s not so much “being rich” (although the power that comes with wealth can cause corruption, as show in history), it is more attempting to “become rich” that generally creates the environment for criminal activity. But, it does not mean that criminal activity has to occur (although I believe this is what you think people believe), nor is it the sole cause for criminal activity, and I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it is.
"instead of dealing with the issue the best we can, many people tries to find excuses for the government, and blame those that tries to benefit from the situation."
As people try to find excuses for the government so do people try to find excuses for the companies. Also, to knowingly and directly benefit from a criminal act can be a crime as well; legally these are labeled “co-conspirators”. And “plausible deniability” has been used to claim no knowledge of the crime, but to misuse this is not ethically sound (and it is a common tactic used to attempt to get out of a criminal accusation). Governments are supposed to “police" these criminal activities, but to blame the police for not catching the criminal and not blame the criminal is ridiculous, even if the police had a hand in it.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
robert hensley
Your words, not mine. Here you are placing no blame on the corporations for their co-conspiring acts. The corporations are not innocent victims here, and it has been shown in many cases throughout history -- such as the CMD’s exposure of ALEC in 2011 of (and I quote), “Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line.” Both parties are to blame here, a co-conspiring act.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
robert hensley
You neglected to place any blame on corporations here, "i'm blaming the actual criminal, and it is the government." Now if you also mean that the corporations are “the actual” criminals too and need to be held accountable for their actions, then we are in agreement. But, I have doubts about your sincerity in this idea because you continue with:
“and also that without the state being corrupt, companies would not have the possibility to exploit it. and also that this is the desirable solution.”
This statement seems to suggest that the corporations are entitled to commit crimes as long as the state allows it, and that: by fixing the state you fix the corporations. But if there were no corrupt official’s, corporations could still commit crimes. Not all white-collar crimes involve state officials.
When a motivation system its self does not include all the ethical terms then room is left for unethical acts. For this reason there is blame that falls on the system. Since becoming rich is not always an ethical venture, becoming rich its self can lead to criminal activity (with or without the state's help).
The state has its problems and is every bit to blame, but this, “without the state being corrupt, companies would not have the possibility to exploit it…” works both ways. The corporations are just as much to blame because corporate corruption does the exploitation, and you don't seem to be acknowledging (or maybe just not aware) that they are every bit to blame too (sometimes more than the state, making the corporation and in turn the monetary system the "core" of the problem in some issues). But, there really is no one "core" problem, it's an interaction of complex issues.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
corporations btw are pretty much forced to do that. in a world with corrupt politics, either you play the corruption game, or you are at a disadvantage to those that do. if you are at disadvantage, in the long run you are going down. since we are not in the equilibrium point yet, we do have corporations that does not engage in corruption. but the incentive is there, and it is strong. beware! it does not mean that each and every corporation is forced to be corrupt. but it does mean that sooner or later, corrupt corporations will emerge.
robert hensley
Absolutely.
“governments are 99,7% responsible for corruption, corporations are 0.3%. are we cool?”
Absolutely not, and to make this statement shows your lack of knowledge on the history of this subject. I’m not going to give you a history lesson on corporate corruption; instead I will simply tell you that many of the laws we have were created to fight corporate corruption that was completely independent of government influence and/or interaction (the 8 hour work day, and minimum wage being just a few examples).
“corporations btw are pretty much forced to do that. in a world with corrupt politics, either you play the corruption game, or you are at a disadvantage to those that do.”
If they are “forced”, then any corporation must cheat to succeed; because if they are forced to do it then no corporation could succeed without it. But, I know what you really mean is, “…the incentive is there, and it is strong.” The fact is that they are not force to be corrupt, or compromise their ethics, but they do so because they want to make the most profit -- and profit does not inherently care about social ethics.
The corporate drive to make a profit without regard to social ethics has been fought time and time again by individuals, labor unions, and government itself; but corporations fight back vigorously (a fact you would know well if you knew the history).
“beware! it does not mean that each and every corporation is forced to be corrupt. but it does mean that sooner or later, corrupt corporations will emerge.”
Agreed.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i'm very much interested in that, because corruption without the government sounds really weird concept.
"because they want to make the most profit"
and the ones that don't do that, fail. that was my point. if you set up a playing field in which corruption is a benefit, you can bet on corruption will happen, and it will grow with time.
robert hensley
I can completely understand how it would be a weird concept, because governments have shown their tendency toward corruption for millennia. But government corruption is not the only corruption that occurs. If you truly want to learn about this you can start with the two examples I gave and learn from there.
“and the ones that don't do that, fail. that was my point.”
Not true. There are corporations that do have regard for social ethics, and these companies do not inherently fail. But then there are companies that choose to do cost benefit analysis on human life and choose not to fix faulty equipment – like BP and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
for the second part, here is a quote from myself: "in the long run you are going down. since we are not in the equilibrium point yet, we do have corporations that does not engage in corruption."
robert hensley
Do a search for "eight hour day", and "minimum wage law" both are examples of legislation making employers adhere to social ethics. In my country these were the result of many battles with corporations.
"since we are not in the equilibrium point yet, we do have corporations that does not engage in corruption."
So you are saying that all corporations are corrupt?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
me: "we do have corporations that does not engage in corruption"
you: "so you are saying that all corporations are corrupt?"
robert hensley
yes, we do have corporations that are not corrupt, and for that very reason they are also not forced to be corrupt. They are corrupt by choice.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
robert hensley
I agree, the government plays a direct role in corruption with not only their participation but also with their lack of action against it. But, it would be unfair to say that government has not fought corruption also, because they have. They just have a long road ahead of them, as do we all.
“if you have a government that resists corruption, corruption will not happen. they have total control over it.”
This may be true in your country, but it is not true in mine. If this is true for your country I hope that you are able to succeed against the totalitarian control of your government and enjoy the freedoms that I enjoy (If that is what your people desire).
Krisztián Pintér 200+
going the opposite way
robert hensley
As an idealistic example: There are two guys that call themselves "the yes men" who played a prank on Dow that caused their stock to drop 3%. But that drop is a part of the problem, because instead of Dow's shareholders recognizing that Dow might be doing something ethical and in turn supporting that action by buying more shares (or not selling), they sold.
The monetary system is so detached from social ethics (in places) that it stomps all over them. It is the responsibilities of the corporations, shareholders, and people in general to hold dear a strong ethical resolve in all their actions. Then it is the responsibility of the government to offer checks and balances to ensure social wellbeing without infringing on personal freedoms. A major problem is (in my country): the definition for social wellbeing is often set by corporations, and shareholders who seek profits with little regard for social ethics. And often they disguise their efforts as “for the greater good” (which they may believe but is subject to bias).
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7rvupKipmY&feature=player_detailpage#t=414s
robert hensley
robert hensley
Krisztián Pintér 200+
robert hensley
Again, not true. Corporations have many responsibilities. Among these they have a responsibility to their employees and the communities the companies would seek to serve. It is the corporation’s responsibility to make sure it doesn't spill toxic waste all over the place; if it does spill toxic waste all over the place, it is the corporation’s responsibility to get it cleaned up. If it creates a dangerous working environment that would kill or otherwise harm its employees, it is the corporation’s responsibility to rectify that issue.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
example: if i have a piece of land by a river, a company can not pollute the river without my permit, because i own, for example, fishing right of the river. or i use the water for my crops. in that case, i can sue them and get compensation if they destroy what is mine. but that is not a responsibility of the company. they just have to respect my property rights. in this picture, only i have moral and responsibility.
robert hensley