• Is what is best for the most successful businesses ultimately best for everyone?
    20 replies, posted
Personally, I can't give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to it. In a way, the most successful businesses today are usually as successful as they are simply because they respond to their customers the best. Then again a lot of these companies strive on unethical ways of manufacturing such as outsourcing. It's really impossible to make EVERYONE happy with you, but it's better to have more people happy than not, and in order to do that, you'd need to respond to the popular opinions. Nike makes good shoes but they're made in 3rd world countries by people paid very minimally. So some people will boycott Nike for doing such a thing, yet because Nike is one of the biggest shoe manufacturers in the world, a lot of people still buy their shoes. If a company is performing too unethically, while still within their legal right. Many people will not like them whether it be for their negative effects on the environment or their sources of labor, and even down to the products themselves. This usually results in the company going under because of its immense unpopularity. Only the companies which respond best to their customers stay afloat. But what do YOU think?
[B]of course not [/B] [editline]18th March 2011[/editline] fuck capitalism
[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;28663182] If a company is performing too unethically, while still within their legal right. Many people will not like them whether it be for their negative effects on the environment or their sources of labor, and even down to the products themselves. This usually results in the company going under because of its immense unpopularity. Only the companies which respond best to their customers stay afloat.[/QUOTE] Nah, negative PR rarely if ever results in a large multinational corporation going bankrupt.
I think that it's the government's responsibility to stop businesses from behaving unethically, as companies are naturally going to do the most unethical thing they can do (within reason) because company higher-ups are less connected to the people they're screwing over.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28663204]Nah, negative PR rarely if ever results in a large multinational corporation going bankrupt.[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily the point I would argue. If the question is "is what is best for the most successful businesses ultimately the best for everyone," then I would have to answer, "no, not necessarily," based off of the excellent example that CD has provided. A good business may reflect the best interest of it's customers, but one that outsources to poor countries may very well have the freedom to pay its workers a pittance simply because they have few other opportunities. This translates to profits for the company and savings for the customer, but obviously is not good for the people who are being exploited to meet those ends.
[QUOTE=Annie;28663192][B]of course not [/B] [editline]18th March 2011[/editline] fuck capitalism[/QUOTE] Competition breeds innovation. Hail capitalism.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28663258]Competition breeds innovation. Hail capitalism.[/QUOTE] This too, but then there's the worrying concern of eventually one company monopolizing everything because no one else can compete. Then again, everything might go downhill with that one company giving others the chance to rival them again. Bleh.
[quote]This usually results in the company going under because of its immense unpopularity.[/quote] When has this ever happened.
Outsourcing in America is one of the most un-american things you can do. Thats my stand on "outsourcing".
[QUOTE=Annie;28663192][B]of course not [/B] [editline]18th March 2011[/editline] fuck capitalism[/QUOTE] Oh alright then, lets all just switch to communism tomorrow in that case.
Oh also Air Jordan's are shit shoes. I've had 2 pairs get tare up and rip so easy. Before you draw conclusions. Different shoe series and I wasn't wearing them regularly. Broke my auto merge.
[QUOTE=Squeaken;28663914]When has this ever happened.[/QUOTE] It's actually happened a lot throughout history. If you can't meet consumers wants, they don't buy your shit. If no one buys your shit, you don't make money. If you don't make money, you don't stay in business.
[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;28663182]Personally, I can't give a 'yes' or 'no' answer to it. In a way, the most successful businesses today are usually as successful as they are simply because they respond to their customers the best. Then again a lot of these companies strive on unethical ways of manufacturing such as outsourcing. It's really impossible to make EVERYONE happy with you, but it's better to have more people happy than not, and in order to do that, you'd need to respond to the popular opinions. Nike makes good shoes but they're made in 3rd world countries by people paid very minimally. So some people will boycott Nike for doing such a thing, yet because Nike is one of the biggest shoe manufacturers in the world, a lot of people still buy their shoes. If a company is performing too unethically, while still within their legal right. Many people will not like them whether it be for their negative effects on the environment or their sources of labor, and even down to the products themselves. This usually results in the company going under because of its immense unpopularity. Only the companies which respond best to their customers stay afloat. But what do YOU think?[/QUOTE] Of course whats best for business is whats best for everyone, at least in the long term. The market can regulate everything by the force of consumer demand. Business ethics becoming too corrupt? If consumers feel so, they have and use the power to regulate (ie boycotts, taking their business elsewhere). As for the Nike example, current consumer regulation doesn't think the exploitation you accuse Nike of is great enough, so no considerable action is taken. Besides do you think the people making Nike shoes in a 3rd world country are better off without jobs? Those plants typically pay more in wages than the local business in their areas, Nike employees are grateful.
I truly don't know. I've always been an advocate for small & medium businesses because in the long term they provide better for their local communities needs and can easily shift around. Big businesses can too but they drag soooooooooo much with them its like as if the Atlantic ocean moved to the Pacific, it'd take everything its way with it.
From what I understand, there is a popular cult known a [B]Objectivism[/B], who say their prophet [B]Ayn Rand[/B] had visions omnipotent being known as the [B]Invisible Hand of the Free Market[/B]. They believe that one day this hand would come and usher in a utopia where it would magically cause the self-serving actions of groups of people to always benefit society at large.
haha i love aryn rand, though.
Ayn Rand is a stupid bitch and her fiction is awful. the fountainhead reads like exactly what it is - a thinly veiled philosophy manifesto. Her characters launch into the most stiff, rehearsed monologues against naive strawmen as often as possible. Also objectivism is retarded. But consumer demand will regulate corrupt businesses - like these ones! [url]http://brainz.org/15-deadliest-us-corporations/[/url] (granted, half of these are sensational and misleading).
give me all hte money ok ill take care of it :)
The question [quote] Is what is best for the most successful businesses ultimately best for everyone? [/quote] Is both right and wrong. Look at BP. Look at any company that cuts corners to gain a profit. Cutting corners will only hurt you in the long run. It all depends on the business's objective?
How's the magical hand of the free market keep things "fair"?
its not in the slightest. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&feature=player_embedded[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w[/url] watch these 2 videos, be smarter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.