Andrew Comments on the Previous Post – Ethics (via Linear perspective)

Andrew is a regular commentator on my blogs. Today, he is commenting on my previous post, “Ethics (via Linear perspective.”

My wife has seen this more than I have. She is a canine trainer and nutritionist. She has a problem with veterinarians advertising and recommending inferior food, such as Pedigree brand foods, because Pedigree is one of the largest corporate donors to the major veterinary schools in the country.

Very often, part of her training regime includes a change of diet. These inferior kibbles cause health problems with the dogs, and those health problems manifest both medically and behaviorally (Afterall, dont we all feel crabby when we dont feel well).

Is it ethical? No. Is academia to blame for allowing corporations to dilute the integrity of its institutions? Yes.

Crisis Jones Comments on a Previous Post – Ethics (via Linear perspective)

Crisisjones has this comment for “Ethics (via Linear perspective).”

An extension of what has become business as usual. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The more attention we bring to these issues the greater the chance that honest folks will put an end to it.

There is an emerging situation of monumental proportions RE The New Madrid Fault, and NLE 2011.

We reported on this yesterday at There is an audio report (23) that has potentially life saving information.

PLEASE my friends, email the link to this report to EVERYONE you know.

The people on The New Madrid Fault Line need to know what is coming on May 11.

Thank You and May GOD continue to Bless Us All.


Crisis Jones posts regularly. You might want to visit and perhaps mart it as a favorite.

James Pilant

Ethics (via Linear perspective)

Should a corporation be able to influence curriculum at a college to provide it with free research? Should a school forbid publication of research that might be embarrassing to a corporate donor? These are questions discussed in this posting. We might add, “Should faculty promotion be based on winning research grants?” How about, “In a free society, how much should a public college depend on corporate money to operate?”

Where does the public and private conflict? Should higher education be an informal extension of corporate interests?

Read the blog entry. It’s good. We all need to think about these things. Just letting it happen and continue by the force of inertia makes stopping or reining this influence in much more difficult.

James Pilant

Ethics Is it ethical to modify the curriculum of a subject in a graduate studies to suit the needs of an organization? We had a marketing project that required us to estimate the market size and the positioning of competitors for the parent body of the B-school. While doing this work, I felt enraged by the thought that the school had modified the deliverable of the course and was using MBA students to perform the market research. What bothered me more w … Read More

via Linear perspective

Has PGE breached its duty of care? (via talklawblog)

This is an ethical weighing of PGE’s (Pacific Gas and Electric) actions in regard to its pipelines.

If you are interested in business ethics in connection with real events not just theory, this is a great article.

James Pilant

What is the role of regulation?  In the aftermath of the financial melt-down, the theorists who opined that less regulation would create free market expansion are witnessing the effects of Wall Street’s self-policing.  Similarly, with PG&E specifically and other energy companies generally, a permissive regulatory system has created the environment for the San Bruno explosion.  PGE is responsible for inspecting 48,580 miles of natural gas pipe … Read More

via talklawblog

Tax Havens Devastating To National Sovereignty

From the web site, Thriven’s Blog.

The blog post is a review of the book, Nicholas Shaxson’s  – Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens 

Tax havens are the ultimate source of strength for our global elites. Just as European nobles once consolidated their unaccountable powers in fortified castles, to better subjugate and extract tribute from the surrounding peasantry, so financial capital has coalesced in their modern equivalent today: the tax havens. In these fortified nodes of secret, unaccountable political and economic power, financial and criminal interests have come together to capture local political systems and turn the havens into their own private law-making factories, protected against outside interference by the world’s most powerful countries – most especially Britain. Treasure Islands will, for the first time, show the blood and guts of just how they do it.

The nations of the world are harmed by the evasion of their laws and taxes made possible by tax havens. The tax money is important but more important is the ability to threaten governments to force actions that multinational corporations such as investment banks wish done.

These escape routes transform the merely powerful into the untouchable. “Don’t tax or regulate us or we will flee offshore!” the financiers cry, and elected politicians around the world crawl on their bellies and capitulate. And so tax havens lead a global race to the bottom to offer deeper secrecy, ever laxer financial regulations, and ever more sophisticated tax loopholes. They have become the silent battering rams of financial deregulation, forcing countries to remove financial regulations, to cut taxes and restraints on the wealthy, and to shift all the risks, costs and taxes onto the backs of the rest of us. In the process democracy unravels and the offshore system pushes ever further onshore. The world’s two most important tax havens today are United States and Britain.

But the world is not without means to remedy the situation. In the late 1700’s piracy flourished because nations found it advantageous to use them against their enemies. Pirates often employed as privateers fattened the treasury of the nations hiring them and did harm to their enemies.

But over time, it became obvious that the benefits of piracy were outweighed by the faults.

So, nations by treaty and policy ran the pirates out of business.

The United States in concert with the European Union, China and other nations could by agreement make this kind of tax haven impossible to maintain or at the very least difficult.

It has been a daunting task to motivate the government of the United States to act against the interests of these larger corporations particularly the financial ones, but the future of this nation may well depend on those tax dollars and enforcing the national interest.

James Pilant

I wish to thank homophilosophicus for calling my attention to Thriven’s Blog.

British Call For Executive Bonus Regulation

British Business Secretary Vince Cable calls for stiff bonus regulations.

From the BBC

Mr Cable said disclosure was vital.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said the potential scale of 2010 bank bonuses remained “of considerable concern to the government”.

He added: “I’ve launched a consultation in my own department on corporate governance that takes in issues of remuneration and disclosure, and it may well be that that’s a better way of tackling it.

“I wouldn’t just cover banks, but highly paid executives in general. But we have to have a system whereby executive pay is available to shareholders so they can make proper decisions from it.”

Isn’t this something we should be talking about? Currently, business bonuses are at all time highs while the middle class barely hang on. Why don’t we talk about austerity for someone who isn’t a homeowner or a worker?

All over the United States, salaries have been stagnant for decades or even reduced. Some fields have diminished in size or virtually ceased to exist. Why should business bonuses be immune for the same kinds of cuts?

From further down in the article –

Mr Cable said he was “not persuaded” that banks realised they needed to limit bonuses, saying excessive remuneration in the sector remained a “major irritant”.

He added that if the banks gave out substantial bonuses at a time when the wider population faces the impact of austerity measures, it would be a “major provocation”, and that the government had the power of raising taxation to deal with the matter.

We’re not even having a discussion about this. Why is it always the middle class that gets hit? Why do they talk about Social Security and Medicare when there is so much money among so few who accomplish so little? How is it that Americans who paid into Social Security their entire working lives can be referred to as the “Greediest” generation as if they were two bit thieves?

James Pilant