• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

why cant corporations/politicians be nice and powerful?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kraftwerk

Member
I mean,if they did all the things they did nicely they would be rich BUT at the same time loved.yeah maybe they wouldn't make 100 billion but make 50 instead ...how much fucking money can you spend in a single lifetime anyway.
I don't want to sound depressed or like a nutjob but every direction I look at I see fucked up shift caused by them.I try to help people in need daily but the misery just drains all the energy and motivation out of me :/
 
K

Kruhex

Member
Kraftwerk said:
I mean,if they did all the things they did nicely they would be rich BUT at the same time loved.yeah maybe they wouldn't make 100 billion but make 50 instead ...how much fucking money can you spend in a single lifetime anyway.
I don't want to sound depressed or like a nutjob but every direction I look at I see fucked up shift caused by them.I try to help people in need daily but the misery just drains all the energy and motivation out of me :/
Click to expand...

Which is why I believe in some sort of regulated capitalism, but then you would need your government to be 100 percent non-corrupt which I would assume is not found so easily. What you said is pretty much the source of all evil in this system. Why make 200k and live comfortably when I can outsource all my work and make 1 million and live glamorously? Why make 10 million dollars this year when I can cut off all my workforce in order to maintain my 12 million dollar salary?
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Because people that are narcissistic or greedy are usually the most ambitious, by nature those with the qualities you'd like to be in control generally don't even attempt to be in control.
 
U

Unknown One

Member
Old but it's pretty relevant to this topic.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/buffett_gates_persuade_40_bill.html

SEATTLE -- Forty wealthy families and individuals have joined Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and billionaire investor Warren Buffett in a pledge to give at least half their wealth to charity.

Six weeks after launching a campaign to get other billionaires to donate most of their fortunes, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. released the first list Wednesday of people who have signed what he and Gates call the "giving pledge."

Buffett decided in 2006 to give 99 percent of his fortune to charity. Then, he was worth about $44 billion. After five years of investment returns while making annual gifts to five foundations, Buffett's fortune totals nearly $46 billion.

Bill and Melinda Gates do most of their philanthropic giving through their foundation, which had assets of $33 billion as of June 30 and has made at least $22.93 billion in total grant commitments since 1994.
Click to expand...
 
K

Kruhex

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Because people that are narcissistic or greedy are usually the most ambitious, by nature those with the qualities you'd like to be in control generally don't even attempt to be in control.
Click to expand...

And yet, they are often the more educated and more intelligent.

Edit: By they, I meant the scientists/engineers and so on.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
You CAN be rich and/or powerful and not an asshole. But most of the time, corporations and/or politicians don't do that. Why? Because being profitable and/or powerful is not enough; you have to maximize your profits and power, which is not compatible with not being an asshole.
 
Slayer-33

Slayer-33

Liverpool-2
1998_google2.jpg


The closest you will get unless I'm missing someone else.
 
T

Tapiozona

Banned
Because of share holders. Corporations need to please the thousands and thousands of people who have a stake in that corporation. Capitalism is very cut throat. One day a company can be top of their game and the next, bankrupt. That's how business runs. It's how it runs in socialist states as well. Life isn't butterflies and hugs and flowers. If you want to stay alive in the market you need to constantly stay ahead.

If you want everyone to share, go start your own communist state. See how much incentive you have to work hard when all your money goes to the lazy fucks doing nothing.
 
R

ronito

Member
Corporations have the same rights as a person without that naggy conscience and ethics part a person has. As with government, religion and all large groups it's easy to remove oneself from the guilt of taking harmful actions. And further while corporations used to have to serve a public good they now have to make their shareholder's as much money as possible. So essentially you'd created a large group of people, so it's easy to remove oneself from the ethical dilemas of any situation, and then told them they have to be greedy, then put greedy people in charge. What could possibly go wrong? Sure, you get corporations that will fund charities (tax write offs are handy) and do good for their communities (marketing always helps), but make no mistake. if it were legal and profitable to fuck you up the ass with an old mop they'd not only do it, but find out exactly how many times they could do it , and how to do it with the utmost efficiency.

Politicians, come now. Look at California, Meg Whitman spent $100 Million of her own money for a job that pays $250k a year. You don't make that kind of investment unless you expect to reap a return. They're just like corporations just embodied in a person with little scrupples an enormous ego, and misguided conscience.
 
V

viciouskillersquirrel

Member
Kruhex said:
And yet, they are often the more educated and more intelligent.
Click to expand...
Not so. Stephen Hawking is not a corporate CEO, nor is he ridiculously wealthy or powerful (I'm sure he's wealthy, he's just not Fortune 500 CEO wealthy).

Leadership is more about temperament, personality and force of charisma than it is about pure intelligence, inspiration or talent.
 
T

Tapiozona

Banned
MisterHero said:
Hiroshi Yamauchi built a hospital wing and a museum dedicated to poetry and a love hotel
Click to expand...


Probably because he's selfish and wants a legacy. Something with his name on it that will outlive him. That's why most people give to hospitals and and universities and museums. The true givers don't require their name on the building.
 
K

Kraftwerk

Member
I guess I am too naive.I just don't logically see why you would rather have everyone hate and fear you and be rich instead of everyone loving and praising you..and rich ofcourse.
 
V

viciouskillersquirrel

Member
Kraftwerk said:
I guess I am too naive.I just don't logically see why you would rather have everyone hate and fear you and be rich instead of everyone loving and praising you..and rich ofcourse.
Click to expand...
Being rich means that those who hate and fear you are weak while you are strong. Also, it's easier to get money out of the weak than it is from the strong.

Being rich means that you don't need to care, essentially.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Kraftwerk said:
I guess I am too naive.I just don't logically see why you would rather have everyone hate and fear you and be rich instead of everyone loving and praising you..and rich ofcourse.
Click to expand...
Because you don't get rich by spending and paying people fair amounts. You could do that after you're rich but your business isn't going to grow to that point if you spend 5 bucks more per employee in wages to be nice or donate all your profit to schools or whatever, you'll go out of business compared to the other companies that reinvest their money, save it for rainy days, pay their employees slave wages, yadda yadda. Being nice will only get you ahead when everyone's playing nice but you won't get far as the one shining beacon of decency and fairness when everyone else around you is being cutthroat.
 
S

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Because we are all inherently greedy and the more access we have to money and power the harder it is to fight that greed.
 
MisterHero

MisterHero

Super Member
Tapiozona said:
Probably because he's selfish and wants a legacy. Something with his name on it that will outlive him. That's why most people give to hospitals and and universities and museums. The true givers don't require their name on the building.
Click to expand...
well man, that's like your opinion man
 
K

Kruhex

Member
siddx said:
Because we are all inherently greedy and the more access we have to money and power the harder it is to fight that greed.
Click to expand...

To some extent but the culture in the USA is to be very competetive, rich and to attain some fancy title which in reality means jack shit. I would think this culture adds at least a little to these peoples' mindsets and ambitions.
 
S

Slavik81

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Because you don't get rich by spending and paying people fair amounts. You could do that after you're rich but your business isn't going to grow to that point if you spend 5 bucks more per employee in wages to be nice or donate all your profit to schools or whatever, you'll go out of business compared to the other companies that reinvest their money, save it for rainy days, pay their employees slave wages, yadda yadda. Being nice will only get you ahead when everyone's playing nice but you won't get far as the one shining beacon of decency and fairness when everyone else around you is being cutthroat.
Click to expand...
You won't get rich by doing what everybody else does and paying your employees a little less. Providing the right product in the right place at the right time is ultimately what gets you there.

The things you're talking about are substance-level tactics. They cannot and will not lead to break-away growth.
 
K

Kruhex

Member
viciouskillersquirrel said:
Being rich means that those who hate and fear you are weak while you are strong. Also, it's easier to get money out of the weak than it is from the strong.

Being rich means that you don't need to care, essentially.
Click to expand...

Which is why, again, there needs to be a squeaky clean govt to force people to care and to not royally screw up the economy and the environment. But alas, that is a pipe dream it seems here in the USA.
 
R

rpmurphy

Member
Kraftwerk said:
I guess I am too naive.I just don't logically see why you would rather have everyone hate and fear you and be rich instead of everyone loving and praising you..and rich ofcourse.
Click to expand...
As long as there is the problem of poverty in the world, the rich will never stop getting hate.
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
Because people are focused on short term gain.

Once companies start trying to produce for the long term, and people start thinking beyond themselves, we'll see something better. Corporate social ethics are on the up and up!
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Honest answer: shareholders. Great idea in theory because it grants you so much capital, but then you have a whole group of people who aren't just satisfied with profits, your profits need to be growing every quarter. And that's impossible, so you squeeze and squeeze and try to keep it up, or else you risk losing everything.
 
S

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Kruhex said:
To some extent but the culture in the USA is to be very competetive, rich and to attain some fancy title which in reality means jack shit. I would think this culture adds at least a little to these peoples' mindsets and ambitions.
Click to expand...

A fancy title only means jackshit if you don't value a position of power that can get you influence and wealth. To say the title of CEO or Senator means jackshit is naive nonsense. The opportunities and abilities at your disposal with such titles are not open to others of "lesser title".
 
IrishNinja

IrishNinja

Member
so, so well - breaking down the prisoner's dilemma alone points at more social settings/applications that i'm comfortable with, to be honest. i'm used to conceptual evidence/arguments from philosophy, and can of course appreciate empirical, but applied logic/mathematics had so much more reach than id even previously appreciated.

a lot of my knowledge on game theory comes from this lecture series "The games people play", not to thread-jack but if anyone can point to a specific text or another, im down to know more.
 
P

-PXG-

Member
Kraftwerk said:
I mean,if they did all the things they did nicely they would be rich BUT at the same time loved.yeah maybe they wouldn't make 100 billion but make 50 instead ...how much fucking money can you spend in a single lifetime anyway.
I don't want to sound depressed or like a nutjob but every direction I look at I see fucked up shift caused by them.I try to help people in need daily but the misery just drains all the energy and motivation out of me :/
Click to expand...

Because if they can make more money, they'll do anything to do it. It doesn't matter how much more, it's just more. More is good. Less is bad. That is how they think.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Obama? Really? I don't keep up on Google so I don't know but Obama?

Man, this country is crazy when Obama counts as being on the little guy's side.
 
K

Korey

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Obama? Really? I don't keep up on Google so I don't know but Obama?

Man, this country is crazy when Obama counts as being on the little guy's side.
Click to expand...
Well, I meant that Google and Obama count as entities that are powerful but aren't nice.

Google and the whole recent net neutrality mess.

Obama being a disappointment so far is probably an understatement. It's possible that he doesn't want to offend too many people right now so he can get reelected to a second term, and then do everything then, but...
 
DonMigs85

DonMigs85

Member
This is why I laugh when people who happen to be customers as well as big shareholders of HP, Dell, etc complain about lousy service or cheaply built, unreliable computers. YOU ALL DROVE CORPORATIONS TO BE THAT WAY and make stuff on the cheap, as well as outsource.
 
N

NeoUltima

Member
There's plenty of private companies that are 'nice'. The problem is often with publicly traded companies. Their purpose is to maximize the shareholders wealth. People become shareholders for the sole purpose of making money.
Privately held companies on the other hand can be started and ran by people who are not motivated by money. They don't have to answer to shareholders.
 
Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon

Member
The_Technomancer said:
Honest answer: shareholders. Great idea in theory because it grants you so much capital, but then you have a whole group of people who aren't just satisfied with profits, your profits need to be growing every quarter. And that's impossible, so you squeeze and squeeze and try to keep it up, or else you risk losing everything.
Click to expand...

This is it. If you pay your employees twice the market rate and make half the profits, you will not be a CEO for long.

This is why the incentives for outsourcing employees should be eliminated (but are not due to our corrupt government). Once a few corporations start outsourcing to save costs, the shareholders of the rest will demand it.

If you own a private company then you can do whatever you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mother in laws and how to stop them?
2 3
100
5K
ThatStupidLion replied
Prozac made me go nuts (triggered a manic episode) and the resulting explosions ruined my relationship
0
1
Puscifer replied
What work is out there if you don't like blue collar or white collar?
40
2K
Werewolf Jones replied
Do you know any Energy Vampires?
2
63
3K
nightmare-slain replied
Xbox CFO Discusses Opportunities with AI, How Microsoft Measures Its Success in Games, and More
News Business 2
84
6K
SimTourist replied
Top Bottom