Popular Revolt in the Arab World (via Grand Strategy: The View from Oregon)

These events are hardcore business ethics matters. It is the economic theories of the Chicago School of Economics that propels the austerity measures all over the world. It is the intense privatization movements again pushed by American philosophies and business interests that is a factor in these conflicts. I will cover the IMF and its part in these uprisings in more detail in my next posting.

There are few commentators I trust as much as J. N. Nielsen. Certainly very few are as well read.

I strongly recommend his writings.

James Pilant

Popular Revolt in the Arab World Thursday Tunisia’s authoritarian government of several decades duration has fallen to a popular uprising. This was not a perfectly bloodless revolution, but bloodshed was definitely kept to a minimum, largely because security forces took the side of protest … Read More

via Grand Strategy: The View from Oregon

EGYPT [26-29] Revolution goes on (via News For A European Strike)

There is some protest videos here from the Egyptian Revolution. I am given hope by the events in Tunisia and Egypt that no matter how rich, powerful and protected by all the powers of the state that the privileged rulers are, there is in the end the possibility of justice.

These revolutions are not just local affairs. From the unrest in Iran a few years ago to the current revolutionary struggles, these are the beginnings of a worldwide movement to shake the foundation of the ruling oligarchy all over this planet.

These are great days to be alive because we actually men and women act with courage in the face of tremendous odds. May we see that kind of courage here in the United States as well.

James Pilant

Huge protests all arround the country against Mubarak’s government. Citizens challenge the curfew in the streets. Internet and mobile communications have been blocked by the government in order to keep the people uncommuncated. Read More

via

The costs of suffering in silence about bad work situations (via Minding the Workplace)

“Don’t cause any trouble.” “It won’t do any good.” “Nothing ever changes.” “You’ll just get fired.” “He’s the boss’ favorite, you’ll get canned.” The litany goes on.

It’s a cultural thing. We are supposed to be tough, supposed to be able to handle it, not be a sissy.

That is empowerment. Definite, hardcore, empowerment. It makes every bully, every wiseass put down artist – well nigh invincible.

If there is anything you should avoid, it’s making some two-bit bullies feel good about themselves.

The article below explains some of the downsides to not speaking out.

Yamada’s work is excellent. I recommend his work.

James Pilant

Let’s say you’re being bullied or harassed or otherwise mistreated at work. Or maybe you’ve just learned that you’re being horribly underpaid compared to the less-than-stellar fellow in the next office or cubicle. Anger and resentment are natural responses to these situations, but is there any outlet to express your emotions at work? Bottled up Many people — dare I say most people — will keep it bottled up inside them. After all, self-censorshi … Read More

via Minding the Workplace

“Attacking a brand is like attacking a person” (via The Business Ethics Blog)

“Attacking a brand is like attacking a person.”

So, we can expect Taco Bell to become depressed, suffer anxiety, and need sleeping pills to get rest. Then it will sit up at night staring into the darkness, thinking, “Just a few more sleeping pills and all the pain will go away.” And now, now that it’s too late, we’ll regret the unkind things we said about Taco Bell’s meat content?

Not likely.

I find the idea of corporate personhood difficult to take seriously and then this thing comes along. We are supposed to attribute human like qualities to a brand? What’s the logical end of this? If I drop a bottle of Taco Bell sauce in the supermarket floor, can I be tried for assault? Will it need victim counseling?

Unfortunately and bizarrely, this is a serious matter. The company is staking out a claim that a brand can be defamed in the same sense as a human being. It may be attempting to set up this as a defense but more likely an opportunity for countersuite or future law suits.

Product defamation.

In a world in which the Supreme Court has just discovered that corporate personhood means unlimited political contributions, the idea of “brand” personhood be far behind?

Have you seen one of those web sites entitled (insert company name) sucks.com. How often do you imagine coporate executives and their attorneys are trying to figure out someway to shut them down and then shut down all criticism as illegal or at least something you can sue about?

This all sounds ridiculous, but this is an opening salvo in a new kind of law. It may work. It may not. But I do not think it’s going away.

Please read Chris MacDonald’s more academically nuanced piece on the same subject.

James Pilant

Last week on my Food Ethics Blog, I posed the following question: Fast Food Beef: What Matters? At the heart of that blog posting is a lawsuit that has been filed against Taco Bell, alleging that… …Taco Bell’s “meat mixture”, which it dubs “seasoned beef” contained less than 35 % beef. If these figures are correct, the product would fail to meet minimum requirements, set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to be labeled as “beef”. The othe … Read More

via The Business Ethics Blog

Andrew Comments On My Post, Gasland – The Documentary

Andrew Gates once again provides his usual intelligent commentary to one of my postings, in this case, Gasland – The Documentary.

These companies will DEFINITELY take advantage of land owners in a second if they can.

My paternal ancestors were coal miners from Kentucky. My great grandfather worked for the mining company for a very long time. When he retired, the company gave him a piece of land on one of the mountains (that they thought was worthless, of course) that they owned. That was sort of a tradition back in that time.

Anyways, about 10 years after he retired, another company comes to him and says that they found more coal on that mountain and that they wanted his permission to mine the coal from under his property. They offered him a fixed amount per month for the rights to mine.

My great grandfather, being a veteran of the mining industry, knew that the company would mine the coal as quickly as possible without regard to his property, so that they would only have to pay him a few thousand dollars for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of coal.

So my great grandfather told them that he would not give them rights to mine unless they paid him a fixed amount per ton of coal that was mined from his property. The company did NOT like those terms and tried everything in the book to get around it, but eventually they caved and accepted his terms. Because the company gave him so much grief about the terms of the mining deal, he also forced them to pay him a fee for every truck that went up and down HIS road to the mountain.

Its always a good story to tell to people who think that one man cant stand up to a large company.

I’m glad for the comment. There is no one in my family that has that kind of experience. (Pilants tend to be ministers, teachers and farmers although on rare occasions they may be found as Internet bloggers.)

Here’s another preview of Gasland:


Is Access to Social Networking a Measure of a Society’s Freedom? (via The Philosopher’s Eye)

Access to social networking is becoming a measure of freedom, certainly not the main or the only one, but a measure of freedom. And it will become more critical as time goes by.

Everywhere and particularly in the United States, the Internet and social networking are the only remaining avenues of citizen democracy as the rest of the media and the government settle into a single pointless monolith.

My heart goes out to people everywhere on this earth – who suffer the terrible pain to live in countries with the kind of leadership we have now.

James Pilant

Is Access to Social Networking a Measure of a Society's Freedom? In responding to the political demonstrations, the Egyptian government has disrupted internet service and mobile phone services, in the obvious hopes of (a) reducing the volume of testimonies and videos being communicated outside of the country and (b) to disrupt the capacity of the protesters to remain organised and to communicate their progress to the greater population. The BBC reports that both Facebook and Twitter— relied upon by protest org … Read More

via The Philosopher’s Eye

Gasland – The Documentary

From the Huffington Post

Josh Fox’s home sits in the woods of Milanville, Pennsylvania, near the rushing waters of the Delaware River. In May 2008, a strange letter appeared in his mailbox. A natural gas company was offering him $100,000 if he granted them permission to drill on his property.

Instead of signing, Fox decided to investigate. Armed with a video camera and a banjo, he set off on a journey up and down the Marcellus Shale, a massive reserve of natural gas that stretches 600 miles from Pennsylvania to Maryland, Virginia and into Tennessee. Known as the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas,” the shale contains billions of dollars in untapped fuel.

Fox wanted to know: What happened to other families who agreed to drilling on their property?

What he found was a heartbreaking collection of severely ill families whose aquifers had become so tainted by the gas, they could literally light their tap water on fire. He edited his footage into a modest documentary, Gasland, which was soon embraced by outraged viewers across the country. It won the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, the Lennon-Ono Peace Prize, and now has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary.

I was reading about the Academy Award nominations when I came across this film. I read up on it. I find it compelling, it’s a moving story about real people who lose the right to have clean water.

James Pilant

Netflix Fires a Neutrality Shot Across The Bow (via 112 West)

This is the first blog entry which has a source discussing what might happen in terms of internet pricing in the absence of net neutrality. It appears that Net Flix is not just where I watch movies but where I look for an ally in the fight for the web.

I just discovered the blog, 112 West and I like his style.

Please Read.

James Pilant

Netflix Fires a Neutrality Shot Across The Bow Netflix posted better than expected growth Wednesday, adding 3 million users to top off at 20 million subscribers.  That’s good for them.  But what got the most attention was what the company had to say about that little inconsequential thing called “Net Neutrality” An independent negative issue for Netflix and other Internet video providers would be a move by wired ISPs to shift consumers to pay-per-gigabyte models instead of the curre … Read More

via 112 West

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (via Nohandboblibrary’s Blog)

If you have been reading my blog for more than a month or so, you know that my idea of the ideal American is Benjamin Franklin. I have posted about him several times and I have a number of his biographies. This is a review of another book about him which I recommend to your attention.

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life Following closely on the heels of Edmund Morgan’s justly acclaimed Benjamin Franklin, Isaacson’s longer biography easily holds its own. How do the two books differ? Isaacson’s is more detailed; it lingers over such matters as the nature of Franklin’s complex family circumstances and his relations with others, and it pays closer attention to each of his extraordinary achievements. Morgan’s is more subtle and reflective. Each in its different way i … Read More

via Nohandboblibrary’s Blog

American Companies Forced To Move To China?

Innovation and Education Won’t Save Our Economy

That’s the name of the article which appears in New America web site. It charges that American companies are often forced to move to China by bribes and threats. In the first part, the author challenges the idea that a lack of innovation is why jobs ae moving overseas.

U.S.-based multinationals are not transferring production to China and other countries because those nations surpass the U.S. in innovation. The U.S. remains the leader in global innovation, with a sophisticated system of creative interaction among universities, business, venture capitalists and government. Other countries are trying to catch up, but that is nothing new. China recently alarmed many Americans with its policy of “indigenizing” innovation. But ever since the 1970s East Asian and European countries have been trying to create their own artificial “Silicon Valleys,” usually with limited success despite huge investments.

Here is where, the author, Michael Lind, makes the shocking charge that China gets American companies to build factories there through bribes and intimidation.

American multinationals are not shutting factories in the U.S. and transferring production to China because of China’s superior innovation culture or superior educational achievements. Nor are low Chinese wages the major factor. For the most part, multinationals are pressured or bribed by the Chinese dictatorship into producing in China. In some cases, U.S. multinationals are told they must produce inside China in order to have access to China’s large and growing consumer market. In other cases, multinationals are bribed to relocate production to China by enormous subsidies from the Chinese government.

According to one trade expert in Washington, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, Chinese government subsidies to individual American companies can amount to as much as 70 percent of the cost of a product. China’s artificially undervalued currency amounts to a government subsidy to Chinese-based manufacturers of around 30 percent. On top of the currency subsidy, the Chinese dictatorship often offers financial subsidies and gifts of free land and facilities that can amount to as much as 40 percent. China can afford to spend money on this lavish scale because it deliberately suppresses the consumption of its underpaid and unfree workers and controls investment decisions by its banking sector, while accumulating enormous surpluses from its artificially maintained trade deficit with the U.S. In other words, China recycles money spent on imports by American consumers to poach the factories of American producers.

I am familiar with the Chinese offering no taxation zones in coastal cities to attract American companies to move, but I have never heard these kind of charges before. Certainly many of the incentives offered to move plants to that country have the look and sound of bribery, nevertheless, the money advantages do not seem to rise to the definition of bribes. However, the Chinese government’s actions of international threats does give a certain credence to the charges.

I will see if I can find out more.

James Pilant