Social responsibility and capitalism.

[DEAD7]

Why? They are just doing what the market allows them. You just say punishing people for being socially irresponsible is the devil.

No regulation is bad, punishment for wrong doing is fine. Liberals have a hard time making the distinction, which confirms at least that regulations are in fact, punishing people who have done nothing.

 

[Poitier]

No regulation is bad, punishment for wrong doing is fine. Liberals have a hard time making the distinction, which confirms at least that regulations are in fact, punishing people who have done nothing.

That's not what you said. Stop doing mental gymnastics. I can't take you serious.

 

[Kritic]

If a nikka was like.... Why do leaves turn colors in the fall?......


You'd be like You alllll ready know my nikka, Israel. Zionist manipulation.

you already know

prove me wrong though

 

[DEAD7]

That's not what you said. Stop doing mental gymnastics. I can't take you serious.

lets see the quote...

 

[Poitier]

Not sure what you mean exactly? Fiscally, as in by the numbers alone?

The consumer voluntarily determines all in capitalism. Thus it does make sense, if it matters to them...
The "if it matters to the consumer" part being the hinge here.
For the most part all organizations do, its the consumers("we the people") that are not keeping up our end of the deal.

For example.
If consumers care about pollution and wont buy from companies that pollute, you don't need laws against pollution(forcing social responsibility), it will be stemmed by the market mechanism itself.

 

[DEAD7]

I see you have taken that out of context and used it to say people shouldnt be punished for poisoning/killing others according to libertarians....
Another slick liberal take down maneuver.

Well... That's not the case. Harming people is wrong and should be punished...

 

[Kritic]

Not sure what you mean exactly? Fiscally, as in by the numbers alone?

The consumer voluntarily determines all in capitalism. Thus it does make sense, if it matters to them...
The "if it matters to the consumer" part being the hinge here.
For the most part all organizations do, its the consumers("we the people") that are not keeping up our end of the deal.

For example.
If consumers care about pollution and wont buy from companies that pollute, you don't need laws against pollution(forcing social responsibility), it will be stemmed by the market mechanism itself.

close your books and get off the internet and go live in the real world..
ppl can be easily manipulated. ppl are manipulated. companies make up and distort facts all the time (which is socially responsible) and consumers fall for them. i lie to my customers all the time.


intel for example crushed amd by purpoting to unfair practices. and after winning the battle they just pay the fine which is nothing compared to the profits they rake in..

in 2013 we now know business and war are the same thing. there's no such thing as being socially responsible in business. ahem....
























...zionists will tell you that. why does intel have research centers in israel are they testing out the mark of the beast?

 

[DEAD7]

close your books and get off the internet and go live in the real world..
ppl can be easily manipulated. ppl are manipulated. companies make up and distort facts all the time (which is socially responsible) and consumers fall for it.

and the answer is to think for them?...

The arrogance

 

[Brown_Pride]

Not sure what you mean exactly? Fiscally, as in by the numbers alone?

The consumer voluntarily determines all in capitalism. Thus it does make sense, if it matters to them...
The "if it matters to the consumer" part being the hinge here.
For the most part all organizations do, its the consumers("we the people") that are not keeping up our end of the deal.

For example.
If consumers care about pollution and wont buy from companies that pollute, you don't need laws against pollution(forcing social responsibility), it will be stemmed by the market mechanism itself.

again you confuse governmental politics with fiscal policy they are in fact two separate things, hard to tell today but they are.

The government isn't a business and businesses aren't the government. That being said social responsibility is the responsibility of society (the people, the government), capitalism is subject to the laws of a society. If PEOPLE want to be socially responsible they can affect change in two major ways.

1. Legally. As companies exist in a society by the rules of that society those in charge of a society (the people) can legislate whatever they want, including social responsibility.
2. Through their dollar. Spend money with an evil company and that "evil" company now has more to work with, that's one the person.

The job of capitalism is to make money. The role of government is to monitory how that money is made so that it's beneficial for society.

 

[DEAD7]

again you confuse governmental politics with fiscal policy they are in fact two separate things, hard to tell today but they are.

The government isn't a business and businesses aren't the government. That being said social responsibility is the responsibility of society (the people, the government), capitalism is subject to the laws of a society. If PEOPLE want to be socially responsible they can affect change in two major ways.

1. Legally. As companies exist in a society by the rules of that society those in charge of a society (the people) can legislate whatever they want, including social responsibility.
2. Through their dollar. Spend money with an evil company and that "evil" company now has more to work with, that's one the person.

The job of capitalism is to make money. The role of government is to monitory how that money is made so that it's beneficial for society.

The role of government is always in question...
But using the role you have given, I feel over regulation IS bad for society...

 

[mbewane]

Not sure what you mean exactly? Fiscally, as in by the numbers alone?

The consumer voluntarily determines all in capitalism. Thus it does make sense, if it matters to them...
The "if it matters to the consumer" part being the hinge here.
For the most part all organizations do, its the consumers("we the people") that are not keeping up our end of the deal.

For example.
If consumers care about pollution and wont buy from companies that pollute, you don't need laws against pollution(forcing social responsibility), it will be stemmed by the market mechanism itself.

The problem is that you assume that the market is transparent enough for the consumers to have easily access to reliable non-biased information. Newspapers are owned by corporations, most governments work hand in hand with big companies, and even academic work can be tainted (or at least hard to obtain for the random consumer). Information is not perfect and will never be. And with the modern capitalistic chain of production being spread out over the damn world, how can I know for sure that something like a cell-phone or an external disk is pollution-free, when components probably come from different parts of the world. And to finish, even IF I do get the information, being that we are in a imperfect oligopolistic economy, I will have to either go for a totally alternative lifestyle or switch from a Apple to, say, Samsung, which basically produces in the same way. Same applies for almost ALL products we consume everyday.

 

[DEAD7]

I can see where this is going... a string of "the market isn't perfect" responses. and while is flattering to know the free market is held in such high esteem/to such a high standard, it is far from perfect. Its simply better than what we have now, and where we are headed(imo).

The extreme corner capitalism is painted into is necessary to justify interventionism so I don't mind that either.

What is annoying is the extremely subjective viewpoint issues are approached with. Emotion plays a big part so it is what it is, but a little objectivity would go a long way.

The problem is that you assume that the market is transparent enough for the consumers to have easily access to reliable non-biased information. Newspapers are owned by corporations, most governments work hand in hand with big companies, and even academic work can be tainted (or at least hard to obtain for the random consumer). Information is not perfect and will never be. And with the modern capitalistic chain of production being spread out over the damn world, how can I know for sure that something like a cell-phone or an external disk is pollution-free, when components probably come from different parts of the world. And to finish, even IF I do get the information, being that we are in a imperfect oligopolistic economy,

As far as access to information, it would be better than it is now necessarily.

I will have to either go for a totally alternative lifestyle or switch from a Apple to, say, Samsung, which basically produces in the same way. Same applies for almost ALL products we consume everyday.

Bad example, Apple is working to move more of its production here to the U.S. in response to the bad press and consumer grumbling. Look it up.

 

[mbewane]

I can see where this is going... a string of "the market isn't perfect" responses. and while is flattering to know the free market is held in such high esteem/to such a high standard, it is far from perfect. Its simply better than what we have now, and where we are headed(imo).

The extreme corner capitalism is painted into is necessary to justify interventionism so I don't mind that either.

What is annoying is the extremely subjective viewpoint issues are approached with. Emotion plays a big part so it is what it is, but a little objectivity would go a long way.


As far as access to information, it would be better than it is now necessarily.



Bad example, Apple is working to move more of its production here to the U.S. in response to the bad press and consumer grumbling. Look it up.

"Free market" is not high in my esteem, because it never has and never will exist. If it did, it would be anarchy leading to the rich/strong letting the poor/week die off, private polices, private education, private everything, so it's far from being what I hope for us as human beings.

Not sure why you're starting to talk about emotions.

As for the "bad example", first I'll see it when I believe it (not that they SAY they're "working on it", but once ALL production has been moved to the US...and even then you'd still have the issue of where and how do they get the coltan for example, shoutout to Eastern Congo), second you know damn well it applies to almost every modern-day electronic device.

 

[DEAD7]

"Free market" is not high in my esteem, because it never has and never will exist. If it did, it would be anarchy leading to the rich/strong letting the poor/week die off, private polices, private education, private everything, so it's far from being what I hope for us as human beings.

That's a pretty concise assessment of something that has never existed...

 

[Blackking]

That's a pretty concise assessment of something that has never existed...

Europe has a system like this mid ages and prior..... Things played at exactly as he described until some enlighted folk came along and fixed them. Enlightened white people and before that moors helped them realize that "completely free market" = slavery.

nobles n shyt were the business leaders and only business leaders. the central gov only got involved to give these business leaders power----- similar to what a completely free market would look like today.

^
This what i wrote above is something someone told me. Idk if I completely agree, what do u think?