Category: Capitalism

Ethics Blog Round Up – 8/7/2010

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism

Chis MacDonald has a new post about “wind turbine hush money.” Sounds like a catchy title to me. It seems that turbines are noisy and complaints could stifle the industry’s growth, so they are paying people what I consider a good amount of money to keep their complaints to themselves. You should read the post.

Lauren Bloom has the second in her series of avoiding workplace law suits. Today’s entry talks about health and safety rules. She discusses the recent mine disaster and mentions NPR’s coverage.

Tone at the top only counts when leaders use words that they believe in enough to live. So says, Gael O’Brien on her blog, This Week In Ethics. She discusses the resignation of Hewlett Packard’s CEO and his violations of HP’s Standards of Business Conduct.

Jonathan Tasini in his Blog, Working Life, has a scathing review of the recent “given pledge.” He’s almost as angry as I am. He discusses the monopolistic practices of these billionaires who made their money on the backs of the workers.

Facebook Discussion On “Internet Rip Off”

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Teaching

When I make a blog entry on this wordpress account, I have set it to immediately post on my Facebook account. The discussion there was lively and informative. So, I am going to repost it here for you to read!

(You will note that my presence in the discussion was tiny. I was playing Dungeons and Dragons from that afternoon until two in the morning. Yes, I am 54 years old and still play D&D – sue me.)

Bryan Aguiar How is the interent a public good? I run a server on the internet. It cost me money to buy it, me money to buy software that runs the computer, and me money to buy the router that connects it to the interent. How is freedom of speech even remotely affected by this? You can still stand on a street corner and shout out your message or pay to print it up on flyers, billboards, newspapers, etc. Where does it say anyone has a right to free interent access? Newspapers costs money, magazines cost money so why shouldn’t the internet?
Yesterday at 9:48am

Gary Bender The internet is considered a public good because it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. By using the internet, one person does not deplete the internet so that others can’t use it. This isn’t perfectly true, for if enough people or consuming the resources of the internet, the extent with which everyone can use the internet is decreased. However, those resources are only limited by the efforts of monopolistic owners created by government in the grant of ownership to the ISPs.

Whether the internet is non-excludable is arguable. Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy. The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion. There are certain special interests who see the internet as a personal cash cow and who would like to exclude some in order to drive demand by limiting supply. This is the reason that the ISPs have hired so many former members of Congress to lobby against net neutrality.

The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech. I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates without being gouged simply because I don’t generate as much profit for the ISPs as Bill does. I have the same right to drive I-520 to 1 Microsoft Way as Bill. Why should I not have the same right to use the Information Superhighway as Bill?
Yesterday at 10:30am

A.G. If you use other people/companies servers, then you will pay for the convenience. OR you could pay for your own server like Bryan does, and browse the internet as you see fit. The internet is a product just like any other.

How is this any different than posting a message on your local newspaper? If your local paper, being a private company, doesn’t like your message than they don’t have to post it. If they choose to post it, then you will pay more for a half page ad (if that’s what you want) than you will for a quarter page ad. If you don’t want to pay for your newspaper ad, then you should own the newspaper.
Yesterday at 10:46am

Bryan Aguiar The internet is very excludable just like cable TV; therefore, it is not a public good. “The internet is too important as a tool of economic growth to allow exclusion” is strictly an opinion. In the Dharavi slum of India, they export goods around the world worth 500 million per year. They have one toilet per 1,440 residents, barely have electricity, let alone internet.
“I believe that I should have as much right to the internet as Bill Gates ” You do, just pay for it like Bill Gates does. He doesn’t get it for free and neither should you. Before the internet were you saying you should get a free newspaper while Bill Gates should have to pay for it? Information is still available for free in public libraries. “Educators and employers often argue that access to the internet is necessary for all in order to compete in the international economy.” Yet we have very few computer labs and computer classrooms at NWACC. Yet thousands and thousands of workers work evryday day without using the internet. I went to taco bell for lunch yesterday and they made my lunch without having to use the interent. “The issue isn’t whether the internet is free as in beer, but free as in speech”. No, that is the issue. People are trying to make it a free speech issue so they can get something for nothing. The government provides public goods with tax money. Private goods and saome quasi-public goods (cable TV and the Internet) are paid for by the user.
Yesterday at 11:00am

Gary Bender Actually, the ISPs are trying to exclude people, not based on the fee, but on the ISPs choice. They want to decide who should use the internet. “Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally – without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users.” Up until now, the users of the internet decide whose ventures succeed and whose ventures fail. The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps. My internet provider, Cox Communications, already has tiered service. But anyone willing to pay the monthly fee can get any tier he or she desires. That is about to come to an end.
Yesterday

Bryan Aguiar ‎“The ISPs want to change this. They want to rig it so that their friends succeed and others fail. It’s political. Has nothing to do with somebody getting something for nothing. If the ISPs succeed, I won’t have the same access to the internet as Bill Gates, not because I won’t pay but because we are in different political camps.” I agree that is wrong, wrong, wrong, and they should be stopped from doing that.
Yesterday at 11:48am

Gary Bender James did have a good point about economics which I think deserves an addendum. You might remember when the ISPs laid the groundwork for the internet – the fiber that makes the internet possible. Certain companies were given the contracts in exchange for promises. Those promises have not been met. Moore’s law is in effect with the internet. Excess capacity and breakthroughs such as multiplexing are allowing for a doubling in throughput every 9 months. Hence, the cost to transmit a bit decreases by half every 9 months. Has your ISP cut your rates or doubled your speed? I saw only a tiny increase over the past three years. Moreover, the government, in its foolishness, allowed for virtual monopolies. Oh, Cox will tell you that there is competition. That’s like saying that cars have competition. You can walk. The pols, by allowing the ISPs to get away with what is actually a breach of contract, have created the illusion, Americans being good capitalists, that this is about economic philosophy. It’s not. We are being gouged. While this is not the same issue as net neutrality, it is related and helps to muddle the issue. I think that $45 plus/mo. is too much for the piddling bandwidth and intermittent service that I get, but if Americans are willing to get cheated, there is not much I can do about it. Anyway, these are important topics and I’m glad to see that people are paying attention.
Yesterday at 12:06pm

James Pilant Gary, will you give me permission to put your comments up as a blog post? jp
Yesterday at 3:46pm

Bryan Aguiar Millions of people around the world survive every day without cars and internet. If $45 per month is too much, don’t pay it. And when you and others stop paying it, the price will come down. Problem is too many people think it is worth it, accept the crappy service, and are willing to pay that price or more for it. But as you said Americans are willing to get cheated. By the way cox sucks which is why I am no longer their customer.
Yesterday at 4:31pm

Gary Bender It’s not that I can’t afford $45. Nor can’t I live without the internet. I did so for almost half a century. It’s the fact that if the government hadn’t created these pseudo-monopolies, competition would drive prices down. Cox doesn’t care if I or fifty people like me quit. They will still have their monopoly and a hundred thousand customers in NWA who are too busy working to make that money to think about why they need so much money. Compared to the price of their four kids, boat, and SUVs, internet service is nothing so long as the credit card still works.

I know someone with three kids, a new house, and a new SUV worth as much as I make each year. Yet she is getting government aid. Perhaps if she were to give up some of her unnecessary goods and get off the government dole, I would consider boycotting Cox.

I checked with AT&T. No go. Not that I will ever go back to those thieves, but I checked into it anyway. I don’t know what alternative I have. I won’t go back to dial-up. I really have no choice so long as I’m an educator. I need access to email. I could move to the Midwest and go back to farming, I suppose.

James, you have my permission.

Bryan Aguiar Agreed. Competition would drive the prices down and the government created the monopolies. Fifty people, no cox could care less. 500,000 maybe.
Yesterday at 6:19pm

James Pilant I want to post the whole exchange on my blog! Any objections? jp
11 hours ago

Bryan Aguiar Fine with me
11 hours ago

Gary Bender No objections.
about an hour ago

James Pilant Thanks! I put it up. jp
2 seconds ago

Internet Rip Off! Crooks! Thieves! SCUM!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure

Google and Verizon are working behind closed doors to divide internet service into tiers. That’s right. You’re going to have to pay more money for good service while having your basic stuff will gradually become more and more unpalatable. This will enable some companies (not me!) to pay for premium access (fast connection) while the independents are left in the dust. And the independents is where intelligent commentary and political action have been coming from. Prepare to return to the days when you’re only news is cable news unless you are willing to wait and wait to see a web blog like mine.

This is a disaster for free speech. What’s more, it is going to cost everyone big, big bucks, that is, unless you’re a cable provider in which case you’ll be able to swim in the money.

Only in the United States can a public good like internet access be bought and sold like an old cow. There is no concern for the public, its rights and the future of democracy. These are all small quibbles in corporate largese.

Incredible amounts of money can be made from dividing a public good. The internet is a government creation and the private cable companies have been salivating like so many rabid dogs at the prospect of taking your money and destroying your freedom.

Don’t think for a moment, this is all about the money. The millions of small voices on the web are very annoying to the powerful and they must be silenced.

They will silence us in the name of the free market, in a made up, fradulent, crap argument that there isn’t enough band width while there is plenty, and this will be all the more reason for companies not to invest or develop new internet capabilities because after all, if the good isn’t limited in its service, who’ll pay for premium?

This is disgusting, a rip off, real evidence of how corrupt, incompetent and vicious this society is to those without billions of dollars to play with.

These people did not develop the internet, they preyed on it. These people provide, currently, a rotten service that in most locales is little more than a one cable company monopoly. But this isn’t enough. This isn’t profitable enough. They can’t hold you by the cojones and extract the last dollar, the last dime, the tiniest, thinnest penny.

The internet is yours. It doesn’t belong to these people. But our pseudo representatives and useless media clowns will do nothing. They will have premium service. Their friends in the board rooms will keep the money flowing to our elected comedy acts that pass for legislatures.

We have no defenders. This is absolute positive evidence of the complete helplessness of the general public. This is a complete repudiation of the concept that our government should try in some tiny, almost imperceptible way, to serve our interest and they can’t do it.

Two companies, Google and Verizon, meet behind closed doors to decide the fate of the internet, this is how the business of government is done in this country. You have no one at the table because this isn’t a symbolic issue, this is about dividing you up for the kill. This is about dividing you up into essentially taxable constituents. That’s right. What would you call it when a public good, something paid for and developed with your taxes, something you owned, is distributed among a number of companies?

I would like to say bought and sold. But I can’t. They are not paying for it. They don’t owe us a dime. They get what they get because of who they are and they have no responsibility whatever except to make money and guess who is going to pay that money.

This is so disgusting. You wake up in the morning, go to your computer and find your rights and privileges hocked like old jewelry at a pawn shop. This is not our America. This is the land of “you can buy or steal anything, anytime as long as you have enough influence and the right friends.” This is corporatism writ large.

There is nothing you own, nothing you prize, nothing sacred, that they cannot come and get. And then make you pay and pay and pay.

James Alan Pilant

Benjamin Franklin According To Walter Isaacson

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics

This is Walter Isaacson: “Benjamin Franklin: An American Life”

In addition I found an article. This is Time magazine’s cover story on Benjamin Franklin from 2003. It is written by Mr. Isaacson.

Benjamin Franklin (via London Sideways)

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Uncategorized

This is an English web site discussing what has become of Franklin’s London lodgings in the intervening years. It celebrates Franklin, which leads me to believe that the little inconveniences of Franklin’s leadership in revolution and creation of a spy service against Britain have apparently been forgiven or forgotten. The link to the Franklin House is wonderful and I recommend you take a look at it. To my astonishment and delight, they have a piece of music you can listen to, that Franklin composed. So, to all of Franklin’s many accomplishments, I can add composer. I shouldn’t be surprised. What field of human endeavor did he not find interesting?

Benjamin Frankln first came to London as a young printer in 1725. He spent 18 months working for James Watts, whose printing shop was in Wild Court, St Giles. Wild Court is still there, now an alley behind the new City Lit. Some would say there is nothing there, but you try walking along Wild Court and tell  me there are no ghosts of it's past. During Victorian times it was a slum. Whilst working in Wild Court, Benjamin Franklin lodged nearby in … Read More

via London Sideways

Ben Franklin’s Business Ethics!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics4 Comments

I was reading the Harvard Business Review when I came across this gem of an article by a John Paul Rollert. In it, Rollert discusses Franklin’s scheme for moral perfection and the cast of villains and heroes who assisted and obstructed his printing business.

I try to read Franklin’s autobiography at least once a year. After writing the biography he would go on to represent Massachusetts before the king, serve in the Continental Congress, and most importantly, serve on the Committee of Five that created the Declaration of Independence. He then represented the colonies to the French king, was one of three American negotiators for the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War, and then to culminate his career, serve as a delegate as the Constitutional Convention. In the last years of his life, Franklin became an avid foe of slavery.

The autobiography is, thus, an early picture of Franklin before the world shaking accomplishment that would follow. Reading the book is an interesting experience. Franklin is witty, self deprecating and pridefull (often at the same time), cynical, clever and moral (most of the time). He freely admits that sex was a problem for him (he mentions intrigues with low women) and he believed it necessary for good health.

He is the antithesis of Friedman’s pure focus on profit, being an avid member of the community, supporting and creating in the public sphere constantly. He created organized firefighters, lending libraries, the idea of matching funds, and the development of education. He not only spent his own money, he solicited money from others and was willing to suffer controversy if he felt the cause was just. In short, he was a model American.

He was no shrunken, pale reflections of humanity, the kind that worships the green dollar sign above all other treasures. He loved his country and his fellow man. He was willing to suffer ridicule and danger for his country.

I have three heroes in my life, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Drummond (Inherit the Wind) and Caesar as portrayed in Shaw’s play, Caesar and Cleopatra.

I owe you gentle reader an apology. I have talked much about what I have read and what it meant to me and let Mr. Rollert’s article undiscussed. His writing appears in the Harvard Business Review which by itself speaks well of it and I recommend that you read it and get his take on the business significance of Franklin’s writing.

Philip Brookes Adds To His Friedman Comments!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism

A few days ago, I reblogged a post from the web site, Get Aktiv. Since then, one of my favorite bloggers, Chris MacDonald, added a thought to which I replied and Mr. Brookes decided to significantly add to his argument. Below is a sentence from his argument, one that I particularly liked. It would, of course, be best if you read the entire post. I’ve written the occasional argument for a position. They take considerable time. So, honor his efforts and go to his site.

There is no legal reason (as a general rule – there may be certain exceptions in some states or countries around the world) that a company must extract every last cent of profit out of every situation. Instead, it seems to me just good ethics and business sense to operate transparently with your stakeholders so that you all share a common goal for the organisation, a la The Body Shop. The Directors of this company are clearly acting in good faith with their shareholders and customers, and within the bounds of the law, to sell environmentally and socially responsible products. Although it may be possible to sell other beauty products and make a higher profit, this is not the exclusive responsibility of the directors.

I went and had a look at Mr. Brookes’ web presence and it is significant. He is a consultant, has an article on blogging and is a proud family man, (provided that there is only one Philip Brookes in Australia). I’m going to continue to read his blog. I think you should too.

James Pilant

American Jobs – Let’s Start Now!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, Government Failure3 Comments

I was reading “The Engineering Ethics Blog” and the author called my attention to an article by Andy Grove which had appeared in Bloomberg. It sounded interesting, so I went and had a look.

(I warn you, I ran across this quote from Grove while backgrounding the column: “You have to pretend you’re 100 percent sure. You have to take action; you can’t hesitate or hedge your bets. Anything less will condemn your efforts to failure.” I became a fan of his at that point, so I am in his corner!)

Andy Grove is one of the founders of Intel, the chip maker. He came to the United States from Eastern Europe, a refugee from the communist bloc. In a lengthy and well written article, he talks about the loss of American jobs and what that means in the long term. Unlikely many who point out problems but have no solutions, he provides a set of solutions as well.

Grove is a visionary and he has become increasingly concerned about the status of the United States. Grove reasons that the United States’ current policy is to allow jobs to go overseas because the jobs created here will be high quality knowledge jobs that pay more and provide more influence. Grove points out that creating one of these jobs is immensely expensive compared to regular jobs and while it is nice to create a few high quality jobs, it’s most unsatisfying when the rest of your population is unemployed.

Grove argues that several Asian countries have careful job creating policies at the national level. He feels we can learn a lot from these nations. In addition, he favors a tax on out sourced products particularly electronics like computers. He admits that this may start a trade war but he says if there is such a war we should plan to win.

I like what he says. I believe he is right and that our nation’s future in disappearing in front of our eyes.

I give you the link to his article here.

Here’s Andy Grove discussing the critical importance of moving transportation from oil to electricity.

I will be talking more about this topic later on. I am struggling with a sinus infection. It’s slowing down my posting.

James Pilant

Milton Friedman got corporate Social Responsibility wrong (via Get Aktiv)

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism3 Comments

I suppose there is a certain satisfaction from hearing one’s own views confirmed. I plead guilty. This is delicious. This is from the web site, Get Aktiv.

This is the key sentence from the essay.

Extrapolated into another scenario, Friedman would no doubt argue that a corporate executive would be duty-bound to offshore their operations to low-cost developing countries wherever it maximised profits, and this should only be done at the very lowest possible labour rates allowed by law so as to maximise corporate profits, even if the developing country has no effective wage protection and it is exploitative of the workers, provided that doesn’t bring financial harm to the company through loss of reputation – indeed, to pay a more ‘humane’ or ‘reasonable’ wage to staff than the absolute minimum that could have been negotiated is a reflection of an executive not performing his duties to the company.

On my flight back from Kuala Lumpur to Melbourne yesterday, I took the opportunity afforded by flying AirAsiaX (sans onboard entertainment) to read another sizeable chunk of “Creative Capitalism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and other Economic Leaders”. I guess I’m a bit slow in getting to the literature of leading global economists but I can now say I’ve read Milton Friedman’s “The Social Responsibility of Business”, an essay f … Read More

via Get Aktiv

Ethics Newspaper Columnists – Round Up 7/30/10

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, ethics, Government Failure

Keith Chrostowski writing for the Kansas City Star has an article contemplating the likelihood of deflation, an economic malady, an unknown experience for Americans as the last time it happened was before our generation and the generation before that were born. He hopes that optimism in the minds of consumers will avert this but looking at his story I am more struck by the enormous cash reserves held by major corporations and their unwillingness to invest it in this country.

Edward Lotterman writing for Twin Cities has a wonderful article explaining a basic concept of economics, comparative advantage. It is also used as an argument for free trade. Whether you believe in free trade or not it is a good read by a very competent teacher of economics. (Warning – Lotterman’s Twin Cities web site does not allow me to link you to the individual articles just to his columns as a whole, so you may have to work your way into the archives unless you are reading this before he writes his next column.)

Jon Talton writing for the Seattle Times explains the concept of indigenous innovation rules. Read his explanation but it all boils down to they can sell to us but we can’t sell to them.

Barry Ritholtz writing for the web site, The Big Picture, explains that we are really just pants wearing monkeys (really) and that knowing and understanding that can keep us out of trouble. (He may be writing provocatively here.)