Re: So whats next
- From: "John H Meyers" <jhmeyers@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:14:23 -0500
I picked this item out of the blue to reply to:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:11:35 -0500, Cyrille de Brébisson wrote:
What you forget is that corporations have a requirement to maximize profits for the shareholders.
The phrase "maximize profits" is unfortunately not a clearly defined term.
One obvious lack of definition is the absence of a definite period of time over which to evaluate.
Many a corporation invests in such things as R&D, quality assurance, customer relations, and so forth, for which slashing those entire budgets could give an immediate boost to current profits, at the possible expense of future profits.
Since the future is a bit uncertain, however, the estimation of future profit as affected by all such factors is also uncertain, which opens the temptation to pacify impatient investors by slashing all elements of current investment and relationship building, emphasizing only short-term revenue, which is unlikely to be the best long-term strategy, any more than dropping out of college to take a job to make more money today.
A corporation is also legally, in the USA, an entity somewhat like a person. Now it is known that the complete picture of the satisfaction in life achieved by human beings is not solely determined by monetary income, which brings up the possibility that some folks desire to invest in "socially responsible" companies, and the very existence of certain investment funds oriented to that goal testifies to the existence of this factor as well.
Thus we might think to incorporate into "profit" the complete result to all of society (e.g. some corporate activities destroy their environment, some promote ill health, others destroy local economies, etc.)
When all the activities in all of society are summed up to get the total quality of society, it tends to come to pass that what society's organizations collectively do is pretty much responsive to the character of the society at large.
If the collective consciousness of society at large degenerates into one of lesser vision and shorter-term values, so will its institutions collectively follow that path.
There remains a diversity, however, within the larger society; various parts of the population have different values, and they may invest in institutions whose values match their own, much as they choose clothes, cars, places to live, political leaders, and so forth, and by these choices the destiny of the society is formed.
Last night an episode of the "Nature" series (Deep Jungle: The Beast Within) noted several places, among them Anchor Wat in Cambodia, which had once developed cites larger than modern day Manhattan, and came to speculate as to why these came to an end. The speculation voiced there was that they did exactly what is occurring today around the globe, that they expanded without considering how they were modifying their own environment in a way which would finally bring their own destruction.
There's always plenty of profit, before the fall of an empire; hope the next empire to fall won't take too much of the world down with it.
With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu and http://www.maharishischooliowa.org .
- References:
- So whats next
- From: David
- Re: So whats next
- From: Gene
- Re: So whats next
- From: Wayne Brown
- Re: So whats next
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: So whats next
- From: Harold Climer
- So whats next
- Prev by Date: Re: So whats next
- Next by Date: Re: So whats next
- Previous by thread: Re: So whats next
- Next by thread: Re: So whats next
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading