Your views on big business

[thebabyhater]

I figured I'd ask this because politics and philosophy in general (at least in the USA) seem to be turning more socialist every day. It seems like corporations and big businesses are now seen as some looming enemy run by soulless demons in suits instead of something positive.

I'll share my opinion. As a business owner, I've really gotten fed up with this portrayal of big business as something negative. I see having a large company as something to strive for - everybody should not be equal in terms of wealth, but instead those who work the hardest and the smartest should be rewarded with more wealth (i.e. the heads of successful corporations). I know that's the direction that I'm working toward.

Basically, my long and convoluted question is as follows: how do you feel about big business? Is it the evil tyrant that the current political machine is painting it to be, or is it actually a good thing?

 

[naerey]

You have a rather idealistic view about big businesses.
Whereas we the poor people, see big businesses as a society inside a society that's based on theft or commonly some immoral form of getting rich.
Ugly sentence... let me explain better:
when I see something like Microsoft, I see a big monopoly, that made it's money thanks to bloat and various pacts with companies like Dell etc to sell only their product.
Usually, the bigger the company, the more the dislike towards it. Whereas the smaller ones are more favorable, because if they're not too rich, it's probably because they didn't "cheat" too much..
Exceptions are companies like Google or Apple, which seem very innovative and as if they have the... 'right', or more likely 'deserve' to be big.

And usually, the richer you are, the more political power you have. And that means you're going to use it to get wealthier, thus 'stealing' money from the customer...
Especially bad is when the business becomes a monopoly, where you have no choice on where to buy from, and this business asks for lots..

That's my point of view, but I guess it really depends on the business, on how friendly it is towards the customer, and especially how truthful. I hate fake ads and fake promises. That's the shortest way to loose me as a customer.

 

[Smith6612]

Personally, I have no problems with big businesses, but if they begin selling info without you knowing for money, or they're overcharging you for something that costs next to nothing to deliver in a way (US broadband anyone?) or bad customer service, etc, that's when I don't like big businesses all that much. I still prefer the local businesses over the big ones, but it all depends on the situation.

 

[Parsa44]

Personally i think that the extreamly rich should donate to the poor. For example if a billionare donated 10 million he could save countless, countless lives.

 

[thebabyhater]

Personally i think that the extreamly rich should donate to the poor. For example if a billionare donated 10 million he could save countless, countless lives.

While I completely agree that those with money should help others, I still belive that they should actually want to. Being forced to give money to the poor by some kind of government or legal action, as seen in socialism, absolutely does not sit well with me.

 

[neteater]

i am not fully agree with because richies are paying tax for there money this is the governments responsibility to help people although richies can make donation to government fuds
and on the topic big business give a good repo to the country and to the owner also

 

[naerey]

i am not fully agree with because richies are paying tax for there money this is the governments responsibility to help people although richies can make donation to government fuds
and on the topic big business give a good repo to the country and to the owner also

Yeah. Though do consider that riches pay some 50% taxes over 100million, which means they still get 50 million to themselves, a bit too much I'd daresay...
Though I'll agree that they probably have earned that money.. since we're in a liberalist(economics-wise) country/world-state..

 

[Parsa44]

I fully agree with you naerey the "rich people" are already feeling the full force of the credit crunch, all the typical "rich people" business men ect are going bankrupt.

 

[browndrake]

How many times do we hear from the liberals that, "You can't legislate morality?" Separation of church and state, abortion or not, gay marriage, etc. Is not charity a moral issue? Yet, they want to tax us, to fund social programs that are nothing more than charity.
I think that everybody should reach out to others and help them, as they can. BUT, I do not think anybody should be forced to.

How much money should a person or a business have? Is this a legal question? moral? ethical? only philosophical?

If you work 40 hours a week and I work 60, should we receive the same pay? If I have 12 years of post secondary education and you only have a high school diploma, should we be payed the same (me as a doctor and you flipping burgers?)

I believe that there is nothing inherently bad with any sized business. However, when government overreaches its legal, moral, and ethical bonds it can cripple businesses.

Now big business....The larger any entity grows, the greater the level of bureaucracy that envelopes it. Big business is not evil, nor is it even bad. Bureaucracy, on the other hand is not good. Look at the US government. The larger it grows, the less efficient it is. The goals of bureaucracy change (from whatever sound principles they may have been based upon) to a focus on self preservation and growth. The individual no longer matters, as long as the machine grows in strength.

The businesses of the world, employ most of the working people. Their goods and services supply for the wants and the needs of the peoples of the world. If you think that big business is bad, try to live for a few weeks or months without the benefits that they provide you.

I pose a question...What does more damage to a country and which adds greater strength: hard working entrepreneurs that make $10 million in a year or people that refuse to work, but gather food stamps, medical, etc. Which of the two will employ others? Which will strengthen the economy more. Which would you rather be.

 

[thebabyhater]

How many times do we hear from the liberals that, "You can't legislate morality?" Separation of church and state, abortion or not, gay marriage, etc. Is not charity a moral issue? Yet, they want to tax us, to fund social programs that are nothing more than charity.
I think that everybody should reach out to others and help them, as they can. BUT, I do not think anybody should be forced to.

+1 to this.

When a society puts a ceiling cap on how much money an individual can have, or even loosely defines "too much money," it takes away the economic freedom of the individual. The way I see it, the limitless freedom of economic opportunity offered in America directly inspires the workforce. If everybody received equal pay, who would ever want to go through the advanced training required for such positions as brain surgeons? Nobody in their right mind, that's who.

The workforce is stratified, yes. But without this stratification, there would be no drive toward "better" jobs, and society would be a lot worse off.

So put simply, nobody should be able to tell you what to do with your money, or how much you are "allowed" to have.

 

[WyrGecko]

If people/corporations weren't stupid, irresponsible, unethical, greedy, etc. then the US wouldn't need to become more "socialist." When the banks were deregulated, stuff went down the drain. Then, they were regulated. Things got better. Then, they were deregulated. "Oh noes, the _ hit the fan again." There are/were more factors, but it's hard to deny that ^ was at least a part of it. It is extremely difficult to balance out, even to simply define, enough regulation to prevent more abuse vs. too much.

Big business has pretty much fused with the global economy, so it's impossible to get rid of it. It's more just a "You have to deal with it." Some people involved with it just need to think things through a bit more . Some are great and have high ethical standards. Others, well, probably shouldn't be around. The issue there is that they often go unpunished, until something really goes wrong.
---
In some ways, I think that socialism gets confused with "giving a damn for other people." Some people simply aren't aware of how much things can suck for people who want to do better and excel. The opportunities often aren't there, or they're "there" but too far to even access. More people need better education in the social sciences, I suppose, before going with an "Everyone on their own, despite already being unequal to begin with."

 

[frankfriend]

I guess it depends on the business. There are some firms which are excellent in their business and in their role in society. There are some which are just downright chancers who try to screw their staff, their customers, and their suppliers - these tend not to last.

Bigness is another matter. It depends on how they try to grow, and why they try to grow. Bigness for its own sake is not really worthwhile. Sometimes you have to get bigger because you need to defend yourself in a predatory industry. But the blind pursuit of growth is what brought down the financial industry, combined with doing things that the management did not understand.

Socialism is very different, being based on a nanny knows best view, on collectivism not on individualism. That is why it sucks. It is wholly different from the strong beliefs of a business leader to builds a strong firm, supports and develops his associate staff, and even develops 'model communities'. It is of course not right to develop economic slavery with the 'company store' approach.

 

[Darasen]

I have no problem with big business. The notion that business in the United States has no regulation is completely false. There are regulations in place that there should not be (mark and market accounting) and fewer regulations where there should be (Fannie & Freddie). People complain about businesses until they thibk about how people are employed by them.

 

[frankfriend]

I agree, you must not stifle initiative. But it is nt necessary to see differences as stratification or levels of superiority. The 'reformist' well wishers should seek to create opportunities for everyone to acghieve the best they can - not to focus on stopping people from earning or saving money to build greater opportunities.