Jen Lamoureux Writes In Support Of Sustainability

Jen Lamoureux writes with approval of Philip Brookes’ argument about having values greater than money. She also elaborates on her economic and social ideas. It is quite provocative. You should read it. jp

So true! We cannot expect eternal economic growth. At some point, an economy will either stabilize (optimistically) or will decline. A growth of 4%-5% may not sound like much, but compounded over time, it is simply unsustainable. 4% is actually a very large sum of money when one is talking about an economy. One must also consider who the consumers are. One must either export goods and/or services, which means depleting the economy of another country by monopolizing their citizens as our own consumers, or one must continually find new ways to increase the money being spent within the economy of one’s own country. That, in turn, means finding ways to increase efficiency. Typically, increasing efficiency in this country means more deeply exploiting the work of the lower classes so that the higher echelons may earn more money. This causes the disparity between the upper classes and lower classes to widen. At some point, we must see that allowing a small portion of people to control the wealth and monopolize the consumer power in this country is not a sustainable model. At some point, we must realize that this sort of disparity causes social unrest and a dehumanization of those with less earning capability. And, at some point, members of the upper classes will have reached a critical mass in the amount of goods and services they are able to consume, which will lead to a decline in consumer spending, and thus penalization of the lower classes in the forms of pay-cuts and layoffs. I am not necessarily advocating for communism or even socialism; rather, I advocate for a model in which workers are paid a living wage by their employers and people are allowed a fair chance at creating pleasant lives for themselves. While it may be true that a labor force of unskilled workers is easily trainable and thus, replaceable, it is no less true that their labor is what creates the goods and services being sold and managed by those who are “skilled.” The idea of any company, good, or service is absolutely worthless if one does not have the labor capital necessary to change those goods and services from concept to reality. If we continue without acknowledging these very basic truths of labor and commerce, the societal effects will indeed be dire.

Philip Brookes Argues There Is More To Our Lives Than Money

My buddy, Philip Brookes, writes in reply to my blog post, “No Telecommunications Company Would Deny Another Telecommunications Company The Use Of Its Lines?”

(He praises me which is very kind and much appreciated but to get posted after a good comment does not require that you approve of my post. What I want is a reasoned, intelligent comment or argument and if you can provide a new source, an article or a book, that is particularly delightful. If we are going to make the world a better place, one of our tools will be thought and skilled writing is a tool of a developing civilization.)

Philip Brookes has his own web site, Get Aktiv. It’s a good read. I recommend it. Here is Mr. Brookes’ comment –

Right on, James, write on!

I’ve just been reading an interesting article from Psychologies magazine, July 2010, which highlights that mental illness is peculiarly endemic to ‘selfish capitalist countries’ – unselfish capitalist countries (you’ll need to read the article!) suffer half as much mental illness, and developing countries such as Philippines, etc… have very little mental illness as well. Similarly, suicide rates particularly of professional men, will reveal a lot about our society!

Another debate that’s been raging here in Australia the past few days/weeks, and ties into your discussion about business ethics, is the issue of the rate of migration into our country. Whilst many people are open to multi-culturalism and humanitarian migration, it completely astonishes me how many ‘leaders’ (political and business/economic) can look you straight in the face and argue that the only way our society will survive is if we continue to achieve economic growth of 4-5% per annum, indefinitely. Obviously, this logic is fundamentally flawed on numerous fronts: there must, of course, come a time when this planet will groan under the punishment of 11+ billion people trying to co-exist here; and this argument is based purely on economic analysis to ensure we keep earning money at such a rate as to support our western lifestyles, with absolutely zero consideration of societal effects!

Oh, that us human beings would wake up and acknowledge that our life on this earth is about so much more than money in the bank account, and possessions we can purchase!!

Look At This!

I found this on the web last night. It’s a video of American unemployment by county. The film runs month by month and in about a minute you see how unemployment developed in the U.S. over the last two years. It starts in January 2007 and runs until May of 2010. High employment counties have light colors. High unemployment counties are darker. You can watch the whole nation darken in a two year period, it’s very striking.

Rumors Of A Moral Economy

Fernwood Publishing is going to bring out the book, Rumors of a Moral Economy. It is to be used as a textbook in business ethics. I attempted to apply for a review copy only to discover that since I live in Arkansas and lack a Canadian Province to report as my locale, I am out of luck. (They don’t do any business in the United States? I mean we have a common border, right?)

Nevertheless, I have the privilege of having as a friend on Facebook, the author of the aforementioned textbook. He has his very own blog (which I link to, only the seventh link I have on my blog) Christopher Lind, The Moral Economy. This is his picture and a brief description of what can only be described as a busy career. (Now, I copied this in its entirety from the web site, Fernwood Publishing.  So, if they want me to stop recommending the book, the author or copying their advertisement so others can see it, I will.)

  • Affiliation: St. Andrew’s

Dr. Christopher Lind is a Senior Fellow of Massey College at the University of Toronto.
From 2003 to 2006 he served as Director of the Toronto School of Theology. The Toronto School of Theology is one of the largest and most diverse ecumenical theological cooperatives in North America. From 1985 until 2003 he was based in Saskatoon, first as Professor of Church & Society and then as President of St. Andrew’s Theological College. A lay Anglican, from 2000 to 2003 he also served as President of the amalgamated St. Andrew’s College and St. Stephen’s College in Saskatoon and Edmonton, sponsored by the United Church of Canada.
Dr. Lind holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from York University in Philosophy and Political Science, a Master of Divinity degree from Trinity College and a PhD in Theology from the University of St. Michael’s College specializing in Ethics and Economics. He has authored or co-edited five books in the areas of Ecumenical Social Ethics, Globalization and Agriculture, Mission and Theology. Dr. Lind has distinguished himself as an ethicist and theologian over 30 years of an academic career. His employment and career path are expressions of his vocation as a leader in personal, institutional, and social transformation.

I went on the web and read some of his stuff. He’s a fine writer. He avoids a heavy academic style for a more comfortable prose style. So, read his blog. Wait with breathless anticipation for his book and I will attempt to lay hands on actual Canadian copy (I may be indicted for espionage.) and tell you all about it.

James Pilant

My Friend, Jen, Argues For Normative Ethics!

My friend, Jen, commented on my earlier post, Personal Change Doesn’t Equal Social Change. He is kind to agree with me but I found his comments significant and I want to share them. So, I present Jen!

I agree with this post, and I think the shift has to start somewhere in education. Business ethics as a discipline needs to evolve beyond what it currently is. Currently, most of business ethics focuses on adhering to laws and other governmental regulation while maximizing profit. There is little motive for taking into account ethical concerns which do not have some sort of legal impetus. This shift will likely happen as slowly as the shift away from ethics and morality in business, but it must begin with education of those who are newly venturing into the corporate world. Business majors, MBAs, etc. need some sort of educational motivation to effect change as they move into the working world, which I believe will come in the form of making business ethics more of a normative field.

Is Greed (Or Avarice) A Deadly (Death Dealing!) Sin?

Gary Bender, a friend of mine, has added his thoughts to a previous blog post of mine talking about telecommunications companies, law breaking and greed. He cites books I am unaware of and an author who I shall have to pay attention to. It is pleasure to present the thoughts of Gary Bender.

Oliver James, author of Affluenza: How to Be Successful and Stay Sane (2007) and The Selfish Capitalist (2008) ‘asserts that there is a correlation between the increasing nature of affluenza and the resulting increase in material inequality: the more unequal a society, the greater the unhappiness of its citizens’ and that ‘Selfish Capitalism is a particularly aggressive form of capitalism found predominantly in English speaking nations – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. James argues that in these countries, around 23% of the population has suffered from some form of mental illness such as depression or anxiety in the last 12 months compared to an average of 11.5% of German, Italian, French, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch people who, James argues, live under a system of social or unselfish capitalism.’ He has been criticized for including Japan, which has a high suicide rate, as an unselfish capitalist state.

Besides the points you make, James, on ethics, there is sound scientific evidence to show that avarice is, indeed, a deadly sin.

No Telecommunications Company Would Deny Another Telecommunications Company The Use Of Its Lines?

Telstra Corporation is an Australian Telecom. It is paying a fine of 18.5 million dollars for denying interconnection between its facilities and those of other companies. Telstra admitted the breach of its legal obligations. The Telecommunications Act, an Australian law designed to prevent just such violations, was the law broken in this case.

Listen to this blogger explain how Telstra caps You Tube at a certain level of band width. He also explains how he is trapped into Telstra’s service and can’t escape.

Guess what? Companies not only want to censor what you can see or slow down things they don’t like, they also want to put the screws to their competitors.

You would think listening to the debate in the United States, that this is all about whether there is enough band width or if we are going to let the engine of “free market” capitalism make this all so cheap we can pay our internet bills with pocket change. This case might give you a different perspective. It would appear given the opportunity that companies would discriminate against each other. Do I have to tell you what that means for your internet service? Sometimes it would be fast, sometimes it would be unaccountably slow and other times, you wouldn’t see anything at all. Is the phrase, internet service provider, an oxymoron?

The way I see it you could make a lot more money denying service. You’d blame bandwidth problems, over regulation, and anybody else that the uninformed might believe responsible.

Ethical? Lord, no!

What do you think this is, some grade school playground? This is the world of American (and Australian) business.

Religious scruples? Golden rule? That shalt not steal? Thou shalt not bear false witness? etc? Not a chance. Religion does not figure into this kind of thinking.

How about philosophy? Kant and the Categorical Imperative? You know, you must do right under every circumstance? I guess we aren’t doing that. What about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism? Are these business practices producing the best results regardless of their initial rightness? Well, if you only consider your profit, yes. But ole John Stuart probably wouldn’t agree with you.

Corporate Social Responsibility? Caste the peasants some crumbs? Well maybe, some in the company may be church goers, you know, a place to make business connections, and they might throw something extra in the offering plate.

You might say, “James, you are just too cynical and you have unrealistic expectations, after all the business world has been freed from old philosophies, over restrictive religions, and public expectations. We live in a new era of one rule, if it doesn’t make money it is wrong, if it does make money it is right. See how simple it is, James? Get on the wagon! You know if you gave up all this moral crap, and wrote the right kind of stuff there could be a future for you. No more teaching college students, no more tapping out your pitiful thoughts at night. Talk to the right people. Play the right games. There’s money to be had. There is nothing in the world that makes a businessman feel better than a little godlike praise. After all, don’t they deserve it? These individuals drive the economy. They make the world a better place. After all, wasn’t the United States created to enable business to make money more freely? Forget about all that liberty crap. You have to make the sale. You have to get some stupid schmuck to get out there with a gun and make the world safe for profit. Relax, James, you need some therapy. Anger and outrage can get you down. You could develop heart problems or at the very least hypertension. Relax, slow down. You know, there are some web sites where they show examples of business behaving well. Write about them! You’ll feel all better!”

No, I won’t.

James Pilant

Personal Change Doesn’t Equal Social Change

Kendra Langdon Juskus writes this in the website, Evangelicals for Social Action. In an article called “The Danger of Small Steps,” she questions the notion that individual action by itself can produce meaningful change. In fact, she says that it gives a false feeling of doing something successful and significant whereas the larger problems go unaddressed.

The degradation of the environment and the degradation of business morality happen over long periods of time, thus, our perspective is limited. It gives individual action a veneer of success when the problems are long term and not easily understood by individuals.

There is a section I recommend where they discuss “shifting base syndrome.” This is when you measure progress based on your earlier perception not the actual baseline. In other words, you consider normal to be inside your experience when in fact normal is based before or outside your view of the situation.

Small, incremental personal changer is good but not good enough. The forces that confront us ,with their lack of care for the environment and their pervasive lack of moral judgment, are enormous. Those forces can damage society permanently whether we change our own lives or not.

I have no doubt in the wisdom and importance of personal change. But without a larger vision it is inadequate to defend us against moral vacuums and wrongdoing.

James Pilant

Andrew Day McLelland Adds His Thoughts On Net Neutrality

My blog posts also appear on my Facebook. One of my friends made some interesting comments and I want to share them with you.

As I understand it the U.S. Military built the main cable grid of the internet in the 60’s or 70’s(my history is maybe a bit hazy here) and out of all the things the government could socialize or keep socialized it seems the information super-highway of the internet would be high on their list of priorities(if protecting those less fortunate was one of ’em) and absolutely within their jurisdiction. It seems obvious to me that the dissemination of information has become a threat to the oligarchy and now they’ll use proxy companies to absolutely fuck the lower-classes into absolute uneducated ignorance. Then when the obvious pitfalls of privatized internet (organized as such) manifest they’ll say “See! This is what happens with capitalism!” Fascism is wily two-headed cobra, I hope I live to see it bombed and sacked back into the stone age.

Thanks, Andrew!
jp

The Islamic Workplace

The religion of Islam has a strong and well developed system of business ethics.

From An Islamic Approach to Business Ethics

Ethics in Islam

Islam places the highest emphasis on ethical values in all aspects of human life. In Islam, ethics governs all aspects of life. Ethical norms and moral codes discernable from the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet (sws) are numerous, far reaching and comprehensive. Islamic teachings strongly stress the observance of ethical and moral code in human behaviour. Moral principles and codes of ethics are repeatedly stressed throughout the Holy Qur’an. Besides, there are numerous teachings of the Prophet (sws) which cover the area of moral and ethical values and principles. Says the Holy Qur’an:

You are the best nation that has been raised up for mankind; You enjoin right conduct, forbid evil and believe in Allah. (3:110)

The Prophet (sws) also says:

I have been sent for the purpose of perfecting good morals. (Ibn Hambal[1], No: 8595)

This goes without saying that there is a general consensus among human beings about certain fundamental ethical values. However, the Islamic ethical system substantially differs from the so-called secular ethical systems as well as from the moral code advocated by other religions and societies. In the Islamic scheme of things, adherence to moral code and ethical behaviour is a part of I%man (faith) itself. According to the Islamic teachings, Muslims have to jealously guard their behaviour, deeds, words, thoughts, feelings and intentions. Islam asks its believers to observe certain norms and moral codes in their family affairs; in dealings with relatives, with neighbours and friends; in their business transactions; in their social affairs, nay in all spheres of private and public life.

The You Tube site, TheIslamicWorkplace (all one word), has a number of brief lectures on the subject. You should watch if only for the parables used in the teaching.