GTAVercetti 0 #1 September 30, 2005 If you have the time, check this debate out. It is long though but HIGHLY interesting: http://www.reason.com/0510/fe.mf.rethinking.shtml The debaters are Milton Friedman, Whole Foods’ John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor’s T.J. Rodgers. Friedman is the man who wrote an article called, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." Mackey argues the counterpoint of giving to charity AND making profit. And T.J Rodgers responds back along with MackeyWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #2 September 30, 2005 what's your position? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #3 September 30, 2005 Quotewhat's your position? I have not finished reading yet, but I leaning toward Rodgers. That is not to say I think Mackey is totally wrong either. Obviously he can't be. Whole Foods does quite well. But Rodger idea of getting his employees to donate seems to be quite a good one to me. I tend to lean towards the idea that a business better serves the community by following rules and making profit for its investors.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #4 September 30, 2005 QuoteQuotewhat's your position? I have not finished reading yet, but I leaning toward Rodgers. That is not to say I think Mackey is totally wrong either. Obviously he can't be. Whole Foods does quite well. But Rodger idea of getting his employees to donate seems to be quite a good one to me. I tend to lean towards the idea that a business better serves the community by following rules and making profit for its investors. sounds very reasonable to me. would like to read if I can ever get through this mound of paperwork on my desk... thanks for the link. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #5 September 30, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotewhat's your position? I have not finished reading yet, but I leaning toward Rodgers. That is not to say I think Mackey is totally wrong either. Obviously he can't be. Whole Foods does quite well. But Rodger idea of getting his employees to donate seems to be quite a good one to me. I tend to lean towards the idea that a business better serves the community by following rules and making profit for its investors. sounds very reasonable to me. would like to read if I can ever get through this mound of paperwork on my desk... thanks for the link. Okay, finished. I think I side with Mackey more than Rodgers now Rodgers comes off as a arrogant jerk who instead of focusing on what Mackey said, just spouted "YOU ARE A COMMIE!!!" Mackey has a vision of company and I respect it. It is to make a highly profitable business that helps people. Perhaps he is not maximizing the profits fully because of charity, but I cannot say that Whole Foods is not making good profit. So to sum up my thoughts: A company that is highly successful will not hurt society by giving to charity. Does it need to? I say no, because giving to back to investors is the alternative. But if they can find a good line of where profits and dividends and such are still high, and investors are happy, then I have no problem with charity even if I think it is NOT REQUIRED. I think it can be a very happy medium.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #6 September 30, 2005 A for-profit business exists but for a single purpose, to maximize its profits. A not-for-profit enterprise exists for reasons other than to profit. We have both types in America and the moment government or the public moves on my for-profit businesses and attempts to convert them into the latter type is when I move both types offshore and 100% of 0 goes to charity. There is nothing to debate. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #7 September 30, 2005 >then I have no problem with charity even if I think it is NOT REQUIRED. I agree. Companies should support charities, especially in their communities. They should not be required to. Wise companies will contribute to charities that both have a positive impact on the community they care about and enhance their image as a company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #8 September 30, 2005 Quote A for-profit business exists but for a single purpose, to maximize its profits. A not-for-profit enterprise exists for reasons other than to profit. We have both types in America and the moment government or the public moves on my for-profit businesses and attempts to convert them into the latter type is when I move both types offshore and 100% of 0 goes to charity. There is nothing to debate. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Read the debate. And please do not try to tell me Whole Foods does not make a lot of money. Interesting note from the debate: Rodgers', who maintains the "all profit, maximize it for shareholders" mantra, company has a retained negative earning of 408 million dollars. Yet, he says that HIS business practice is the better one. I really don't care if a company gives to charity or not. It can even have the effect (as mackey and Friedman say) of getting you more profit. But to say that they should not simply because they are a business is black and white thought. And that is not how I roll. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #9 September 30, 2005 Being a Christian, a stockholder, a father and a citizen, I favor the framework of this corporate example. http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company.asp WinShape Centre® Foundation was founded 20 years ago by Truett Cathy. The umbrella program encompasses WinShape Homes, which currently operates 14 homes in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Brazil. The WinShape Centre Scholarship Program at Berry College in Rome, Ga., is a co-op program offering joint four-year scholarship funding to incoming freshmen of up to $32,000. Camp WinShape® is a boys and girls summer program at the college, which nearly 1,700 campers from 24 states and two foreign countries attended in 2004. Chick-fil-A separately offers $1,000 college scholarships to its restaurant employees, a 30-year Chick-fil-A tradition that has awarded nearly $20 million in scholarships. Additionally, the WinShape Centre Foundation also operates the WinShape Retreat that highlights a marriage counseling center as the primary focus of the multi-use conference and retreat facility located on the Mountain Campus of Berry College Plus they make a helluva chicken sammy! Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #10 September 30, 2005 QuoteBeing a Christian, a stockholder, a father and a citizen, I favor the framework of this corporate example. Good for you. Just don't impose your views on me or my for-profit businesses and we'll co-exist swimmingly. At the present time I'm diligently working on a not-for-profit organization to which the for-profits likely will be contributing substantial funds and other resources over time. For me the separation between the different entity types and their guiding principles is important and I am absolutely against the forced contributions that are insidiously weaving their way into professional firms and companies with increasing frequency. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #11 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteBeing a Christian, a stockholder, a father and a citizen, I favor the framework of this corporate example. Good for you. Just don't impose your views on me or my for-profit businesses and we'll co-exist swimmingly. At the present time I'm diligently working on a not-for-profit organization to which the for-profits likely will be contributing substantial funds and other resources over time. For me the separation between the different entity types and their guiding principles is important and I am absolutely against the forced contributions that are insidiously weaving their way into professional firms and companies with increasing frequency. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Where did ANYONE in this thread or that debate say that chairty should be enforced? In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #12 September 30, 2005 QuoteQuote QuoteBeing a Christian, a stockholder, a father and a citizen, I favor the framework of this corporate example. Good for you. Just don't impose your views on me or my for-profit businesses and we'll co-exist swimmingly. At the present time I'm diligently working on a not-for-profit organization to which the for-profits likely will be contributing substantial funds and other resources over time. For me the separation between the different entity types and their guiding principles is important and I am absolutely against the forced contributions that are insidiously weaving their way into professional firms and companies with increasing frequency. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Where did ANYONE in this thread or that debate say that chairty should be enforced? In fact, I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite. Remember when you told me that I might read to fast and miss the point sometimes? Maybe that's the case... I don't know why this whole thing was so threatening to him... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #13 September 30, 2005 QuoteWhere did ANYONE in this thread or that debate say that chairty should be enforced? You implied this position is debatable and therefore it is legitimate, see the following text in boldface, your own words: QuoteSo to sum up my thoughts: A company that is highly successful will not hurt society by giving to charity. Does it need to? I say no, because giving to back to investors is the alternative. QuoteIn fact, I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite. Indeed you did. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #14 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteBeing a Christian, a stockholder, a father and a citizen, I favor the framework of this corporate example. QuoteGood for you. Just don't impose your views on me or my for-profit businesses and we'll co-exist swimmingly. Uh, easy there Donkey. Any comments on my example? Or are you still swimming in the delusion that I have some authority to "impose" my views on you? Interesting reaction you had there Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #15 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteWhere did ANYONE in this thread or that debate say that chairty should be enforced? You implied this position is debatable and therefore it is legitimate, see the following text in boldface, your own words: THe debate is not to make charity mandatory but whether people think they SHOULD on a VOLUNTARY basis. I would NEVER propose a requirement or law. That goes entirely against my principles. Which is where the question, "Does it need to?" and its answer comes from. In other words, "Do I PERSONALLY need a company to give to charity to be a good business? the answer is no. But I will not fault a successful company for doing so either.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #16 September 30, 2005 QuoteAny comments on my example? No, however I will give you some context. A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, fait accompli. In addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits and they threaten with few nuances to either damage our reputation or diminish our cash flow through various means. Forced contributions are wrong as are shakedowns IMO, they are increasing in frequency based on my actual experiences, and I will continue to comment on them as I see fit. Cheers. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #17 September 30, 2005 >A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. Surely you would not be in favor of a law prohibiting such contributions . . . >In addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" >who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits Again, that's no problem. You can always say no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #18 September 30, 2005 Quote>A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. He sid they gave HER income to the relief without asking. Not the company's profit money. She got a pay cut so they could donate for her. I find that to be wrong. But that is not the topic at hand.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Alias 0 #19 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteAny comments on my example? QuoteNo, however I will give you some context. Oh, I guess you simply selected me to respond to because I added "Christian" in my statement? Or was it the provided example of one of the largest fast food chains, controlled by a Christian C.E.O., and how his company supports his employees and the multitude of specific charitable environments he has established with corporate profits and personal wealth? I thought I gave a great example regarding corporate/social responsibility. You seem not to be able to consider the whole picture because of some event that happened to someone you know. Oh well QuoteIn addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits and they threaten with few nuances to either damage our reputation or diminish our cash flow through various means. How is that? EXAMPLE? Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeryde13 0 #20 October 2, 2005 in most corporate charters there is a stated porpuse to maximise profits of the corp in any legal way ( i am amember of a few and that was in mine/ours). the corp is responsible to the share holders. i am not really a fan of charity , i think the best thing to help people is to build a strong company that employees have a stack in ( shares of the company like whole foods does and peoles express airlines did). do to failings in public education, a corp. may find investing in the education of it's employees as the best way to maximise profits there is another side of this, and that is the responsibility of the end user or consumer. in a free market society ( the only way in my opinion) , the consumer decides where to spend his money. so anyone can decide what companies succeed and fail by their spending habits._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #21 October 2, 2005 QuoteQuote>A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. He sid they gave HER income to the relief without asking. Not the company's profit money. She got a pay cut so they could donate for her. I find that to be wrong. But that is not the topic at hand. I'm with Milton on this. The social responsibility lies with the individuals, not the corporation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GTAVercetti 0 #15 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteWhere did ANYONE in this thread or that debate say that chairty should be enforced? You implied this position is debatable and therefore it is legitimate, see the following text in boldface, your own words: THe debate is not to make charity mandatory but whether people think they SHOULD on a VOLUNTARY basis. I would NEVER propose a requirement or law. That goes entirely against my principles. Which is where the question, "Does it need to?" and its answer comes from. In other words, "Do I PERSONALLY need a company to give to charity to be a good business? the answer is no. But I will not fault a successful company for doing so either.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #16 September 30, 2005 QuoteAny comments on my example? No, however I will give you some context. A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, fait accompli. In addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits and they threaten with few nuances to either damage our reputation or diminish our cash flow through various means. Forced contributions are wrong as are shakedowns IMO, they are increasing in frequency based on my actual experiences, and I will continue to comment on them as I see fit. Cheers. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #17 September 30, 2005 >A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. Surely you would not be in favor of a law prohibiting such contributions . . . >In addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" >who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits Again, that's no problem. You can always say no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #18 September 30, 2005 Quote>A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. He sid they gave HER income to the relief without asking. Not the company's profit money. She got a pay cut so they could donate for her. I find that to be wrong. But that is not the topic at hand.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #19 September 30, 2005 Quote QuoteAny comments on my example? QuoteNo, however I will give you some context. Oh, I guess you simply selected me to respond to because I added "Christian" in my statement? Or was it the provided example of one of the largest fast food chains, controlled by a Christian C.E.O., and how his company supports his employees and the multitude of specific charitable environments he has established with corporate profits and personal wealth? I thought I gave a great example regarding corporate/social responsibility. You seem not to be able to consider the whole picture because of some event that happened to someone you know. Oh well QuoteIn addition I am routinely "shaken down" by "community activists" who believe they are entitled to a share of my profits and they threaten with few nuances to either damage our reputation or diminish our cash flow through various means. How is that? EXAMPLE? Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeryde13 0 #20 October 2, 2005 in most corporate charters there is a stated porpuse to maximise profits of the corp in any legal way ( i am amember of a few and that was in mine/ours). the corp is responsible to the share holders. i am not really a fan of charity , i think the best thing to help people is to build a strong company that employees have a stack in ( shares of the company like whole foods does and peoles express airlines did). do to failings in public education, a corp. may find investing in the education of it's employees as the best way to maximise profits there is another side of this, and that is the responsibility of the end user or consumer. in a free market society ( the only way in my opinion) , the consumer decides where to spend his money. so anyone can decide what companies succeed and fail by their spending habits._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #21 October 2, 2005 QuoteQuote>A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. He sid they gave HER income to the relief without asking. Not the company's profit money. She got a pay cut so they could donate for her. I find that to be wrong. But that is not the topic at hand. I'm with Milton on this. The social responsibility lies with the individuals, not the corporation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
freeryde13 0 #20 October 2, 2005 in most corporate charters there is a stated porpuse to maximise profits of the corp in any legal way ( i am amember of a few and that was in mine/ours). the corp is responsible to the share holders. i am not really a fan of charity , i think the best thing to help people is to build a strong company that employees have a stack in ( shares of the company like whole foods does and peoles express airlines did). do to failings in public education, a corp. may find investing in the education of it's employees as the best way to maximise profits there is another side of this, and that is the responsibility of the end user or consumer. in a free market society ( the only way in my opinion) , the consumer decides where to spend his money. so anyone can decide what companies succeed and fail by their spending habits._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #21 October 2, 2005 QuoteQuote>A few weeks ago my SO received an e-mail from her firm's managing > partner, who was simply notifying her and the other equity partners > that she and her colleagues had just given 1% of their individual > annual incomes to aid victims of Katrina. >No discussion or debate. Their individual contributions were forced, > fait accompli. That is an example of a company making a voluntary contribution, and there's no problem with that. If you don't like how that company contributes, don't buy their stuff. If you're an employee and you don't like how they get the money, work somewhere else. He sid they gave HER income to the relief without asking. Not the company's profit money. She got a pay cut so they could donate for her. I find that to be wrong. But that is not the topic at hand. I'm with Milton on this. The social responsibility lies with the individuals, not the corporation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
