CreateDebate


Debate Info

56
60
Good Bad
Debate Score:116
Arguments:41
Total Votes:163
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good (18)
 
 Bad (23)

Debate Creator

jessald(1906) pic



Are big corporations good or bad?

Good

Side Score: 56
VS.

Bad

Side Score: 60
3 points

really all depends. do you like your fast internet connection and the features that came with your service. enjoy the awesome graphics in video games and the kickass parts to your computer?

do you like cable tv?

are you smart enough to not get bamboozled by big smart guys?

do you like a steady job that provides benefits?

do you like low prices and progress in deals and technology in order for a corporation to win you over as a consumer?

do you like having the providers by the balls?

if yes to all of these questions, than a corporate world is for you.

6 years ago | Side: Good
3 points

You could argue, with concrete examples (Enron), that corporations have acted like evil empires. But in todays business world business ethics is not only the key driver for survival it's a form of gaining competitive advantage. The "easy", unethical, way of "taking care of things" doesn't prompt the best long term benefit. Besides the obvious penalties a corporation receives from acting unethically, a corporation's biggest incentive to be "good" is market share, or in better words keeping consumers loyal to their brand. Look at how Nike changed their ways of outsourcing let alone organizational structure after a couple articles in some big magazines exposed them taking advantage of poor working conditions in Asia. It's a liability to be bad these days. Corporations are also finding that there are real cost saving benefits associated with being environmentally friendly. Power plants that run more efficiently also require less coal or oil which are huge cost savings and in turn let off less carbon.

6 years ago | Side: Good
Spoonerism(825) Disputed
0 points

Nike's efforts to monitor labor are commendable, but a drop in the water compared to so many other companies doing nothing. And Nike only started to because they'd been getting bad press for it for years! It took YEARS to get any reform, and even still people are underpaid, unions are forbidden.

Corporations are earth friendly when it suits them to be, which is not all that often. Why dispose of chemical waste properly when you can just dump it and pay a fine?

I wish you were right. I wish like HELL that ethical behavior of a company led to success, and that by comparison, unethical behavior led to failure. It simply isn't true. One need look at BP as the latest in a long line of corporate f*ck-ups to see it.

4 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

How could you say that?!??!?!??!?!??!?! Corporations give us the jobs we need to make enough money for food, hosing, and clothing. Without them we would all be poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

Just like people, I think corporations are by default good. It is the situation that they put themselves in or find themselves in that turns them "bad".

A corporation's niche has a lot to do with the situation that they may find themselves in. Company's like Apple, Google, Starbucks, and Ferrari have small specialized niches in the market. They can be dedicated to customer care whereas companies like Microsoft, Yahoo!, McDonalds, and GM, because of heavy competition are somewhat forced into making decision that detract from customer care.

Something else I think is very important to how a company may seem, is employee satisfaction, as it effects customer care greatly and that has a lot more to do with the customer and social expectations than the actual company itself.

6 years ago | Side: Good by Default

Corporations big and small are fantastic. That doesn't mean corporatism is good though. Corporatism is when the state practices favouritism with certain companies in the form of subsidy, corporate welfare, and succumbing to the pressure of certain special interests by repealing laws or instituting regulations that benefit them directly. When that happens those "big corporations" have unfair advantages and begin to function as something not prone to market forces. In this sense -- the sense that they shape public policy and are immune to market pressures -- they act like a non-representative branch of the government. This is not how capitalism should function.

6 years ago | Side: Good
3 points

it really isn't capitalism. the core goals of capitalism are free market and free enterprise. if legislations are being passed that help large corporations and purposely keep small businesses from starting, that's government interference, hence, losing the free market and enterprise.

6 years ago | Side: Good

Big corporations are the best. They provide us with cheap products, and give us the jobs we need to make enough money for food and a place to stay. Without them this would be a very poor country. The only reason we are in a recession is that taxes and environmental protection Hertz business.

3 years ago | Side: wonderful

I can agree with that. Also, the bad economic policy that government implements.

3 years ago | Side: Good

Big corporations are machines of economic centralization and economic stratification. They tend to suck up huge amounts of wealth and capital and deliver it to a rather small number of people.

This sort of concentration of wealth has several consequences:

1. First and foremost, large corporations have the ability to dominate local markets. Shoving out smaller businesses and keeping new ones from developing.

2. Wealth becomes stratified and concentrated in the greater population. This has ramifications for the economy as a whole; it can produce recessions due to a large number of people who have little to no real wage growth and an increasing amount of capital that cannot be spent on investments due to the fact that demand is not increasing. Economic stagnation tends to occur because of this process.

Another problem comes with innovation; big corporations are essentially economic bureaucracies. A small number of people make the decisions and approve the ideas while the vast majority of people have little to no say in how things are run and what products and services are produced (and how).

3. Money is power, the large the corporation and the more our economy is dominated by large corporations the more political power corporations have. Because of the wealth concentration effects of corporations we see a complete shift of power away from lower and middle-class people and towards the rich who own the corporations as well as the corporations themselves. (The CEO of Mcdonalds and the Mcdonalds corporation can, independently, give to a particular political party or candidate).

If you believe in democracy you should be fairly worried about this trend.

Also, the domination of a few media conglomerates; the control of all of our major sources of information and communication, is also worrisome in a democracy. It guarantees that certain viewpoints will never be expressed (or be expressed sparingly) and others will be pushed extensively.

Fox News is not the only guilty party, all of the major media outlets censor the information being given to us.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
8 points

1. First and foremost, large corporations have the ability to dominate local markets. Shoving out smaller businesses and keeping new ones from developing.

Smaller businesses can continue to exist if they are savvy. They could, and have, cornered niche markets that stores like Wal-mart can't, such as. local market food, or any unique product. The only time they go out of business is when they are selling a like product and can't keep their prices low enough, thereby directing the consumer to big box stores where the same thing costs less. In that sense it is the people, not the big businesses, that drive out smaller businesses. Also, most of these stores like walmart are retailers, and their products come from a large variety of other companies, creating internal competition.

Also, I actually haven't seen this phenomenon happen on the scale normally described. In my home town we have a walmart as well as a plethora of small businesses including bookstores, restaurant, clothing stores, music and electronic stores, repair shops and variety stores. Though these places are have generally higher prices, they also have a selection that is very different from the select brands Walmart offers.

In the city (Halifax) the story is even better. There are more than 3 big box stores meaning they are in competition, and downtown where huge retailers can't fit small business is flourishing. I think the argument that they "shove out smaller businesses" comes from a type of unfounded cynicism. The people controlling the market are the consumers. Ultimately you are the ones, collectively, who put out of business the uncompetitive.

2. Wealth becomes stratified and concentrated in the greater population.

That is an awfully dubious claim. Could you cite some empirical data? In general, big corporations raise the living standards of everyone because of the low prices they are able to afford, and profit they make goes right to the stock holders who often depend on big business for their retirement etc. or back into investment. Look at Exxon Mobil. Sure they're making huge profits in terms of "that number is big." But relative to what they spend, they only get 9.8 cents for every dollar of revenue. That is low. The rest goes back into innovation, exploration, mutual funds, and other things that do precisely the opposite of concentrate wealth. Truth be told, only a handful of executives and presidents get the million dollar salaries -- still less than Judge Judy might I add. To give you a comparison, Google's profit margin is 29.89%, Walmart 3.5%, Shell Oil 7.9% (average profit margin for the last 20 years has been 8.3%). Only one solution. Tax Google's record profits! Or how bout no, because Google and everyone else benefits from putting that revenue back into the system.

Another problem comes with innovation; big corporations are essentially economic bureaucracies. A small number of people make the decisions and approve the ideas while the vast majority of people have little to no say in how things are run and what products and services are produced (and how).

I'd appreciate some examples for what your saying. Stock holders have a say. Consumers have a say. And they make their say by not buying the product. Here, if you don't like Coke and Pepsi for reason X, then buy the locally brewed soda. Propeller Soda Pop is a locally run business and, in my opinion, they taste better too. Also, it is true that the there is a lot of economic bureaucracy in big business. But what's the alternative? Oh yah, coercive bureaucracy ie. government.

3. Money is power, the large the corporation and the more our economy is dominated by large corporations the more political power corporations have.

That I can agree with. That's called corporatism. You won't find a single free market economist who is for corporate welfare. However, as we see here now, the only legitimate argument you have given is an indictment of crooked politicians who are willing to succumb to lobbyists, bribes, etc. to remove market pressures from certain corporations. There is a solution to this though. It's called smaller government!

About the news media. That I can agree with that too. However, I think we can agree that the internet is changing that.

6 years ago | Side: Good
4 points

1. First of all; while small businesses have the ability to survive outside of the market that big corporations are dominating that hardly has anything to do with my point. That's like saying that Wal-Mart doesn't harm small business because small businesses in Indonesia aren't failing because of it.

Secondly, consumer choice is highly influenced by the information we receive. Large corporations are able to dominate the commercial airwaves and get their products and services known by a larger number of people, producing familiarity and preference.

It never matters whether or not a given product or service is superior; a small business could be outdoing Wal-Mart in price (and, in my experience, Wal-Mart's prices aren't lower, at least for what I used to buy there), it doesn't matter though, as Wal-Mart is "known" for low prices, just like Uncle Bill's Snake Oil is "known" for curing baldness, scurvy, and depression.

Big businesses have other advantages that small businesses (in their industry) cannot compete with.

When certain markets or regions take an economic downturn; say the state of Missouri sees a major economic slump and consumer demand plunges. Wal-Mart and other major stores can continue to operate off of the profits from other areas of the country. Small businesses, however, don't have the luxury of a vast supply of income from a variety of regions and sources.

Also, big corporations can go into a developing area; drop their prices way below the competition (taking a loss) and use the profits from other areas of the country (or world) to wait for the other businesses to go under, close, and then put their prices back up to normal.

"The people controlling the market are the consumers. Ultimately you are the ones, collectively, who put out of business the uncompetitive."

People will buy discount poison drops if they said "quality pain killer" on it. Just because people are making bad choices doesn't mean it legitimizes the choice. That's like saying "Wal-Mart doesn't hurt anyone because everyone likes it". It's a bogus argument.

Additionally, we're invested with not only economic power (through the dollar) but political power. Just because people are willing to buy cheap goods made from children in sweatshops doesn't mean that choice is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away.

People don't have the economic right to preference slavery over freemen factory goods. Are you saying we should legalize slavery and let the market decide?

2. For one thing; you are ignoring the huge amount of government redistribution programs that have been in operation for almost a hundred years. Pretending that business alone rose the standard of living for the average person is the worst sort of tunnel vision.

First of all, before the New Deal there was an economic catastrophe or depression every five to ten years (nationally, there were far more on a local level), since the New Deal there has never been a single depression in this country, hardly a recession either. Keynesian, socialist, economics has done wonders for our economy and our standard of living.

Trickle down economics has been shown, time and again, to be a worthless sham.

The most recent example is the phenomenal increase in individual productivity in this country. A productivity increase that has not been matched by wage increases. In fact, poverty has been increasing in recent years, food stamp applications have been on the rise, and unemployment is rising as well.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114341649383308604-

nD9yJIDaBrnnGoDZYhxAfVf7Sbg_20070326.html

How can this be? How can wages be going down by .3 per cent (that's not even factoring in our ever rising inflation) while our productivity, as individuals, has increased 8.4 per cent? Why isn't the market giving back?

The only reason we have the standard of living we enjoy today is due to government redistribution programs, market restrictions, regulation, and control over the money supply.

Of course, we wouldn't have anything to redistribute if it weren't for business, that's true. But they wouldn't have a business if it weren't for the workers and the consumers; it's also a sure thing that we can operate perfectly well without big corporations.

Here are some links backing up my claims on innovative stagnation in larger companies:

From Forbes: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n5_v37/ai_15859242

Portfolio:

http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/2007/11/15/Innovation-At-Big-Companies

Not exactly anti-business organizations, yet they both talk about how large corporations tend to stagnate when it comes to innovation.

3. Your statements are terribly intellectually dishonest. This, again, must be a factor of your endemic tunnel-vision.

First of all, a small government would give even greater power to corporations; without a strong government most decisions would be left up, directly, to those with the most economic power; not indirectly through bribes, lobbying, and campaign funding.

Tell me, how on earth is a politician supposed to get elected without campaign contributions? How on earth are they supposed to get elected without the assistance of mass media? Without support from big business and the media another candidate would simply get in who is.

In other words, there are plenty of honest politicians or people who want to be honest politicians. The problem is that the system rewards the dishonest.

We cannot have a Democracy with a small government, we would end up in a true Plutocracy; a society government exclusively by the rich. We cannot have a functioning democracy in a system of extreme wealth stratification either. Without the backing of the economic elites no national politician stands a chance of getting elected (state and local have a slightly better chance, on down to the lowest rungs of the political ladder).

I also wonder why you only see fit to blame politicians and never corporations. Are corporations small children who are just swept up in political corruption by accident? They know exactly what they are doing, they are doing it for their bottom line, and to blame politicians only is to, again, be intellectual dishonest.

Big corporations will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want; same as anyone else. The problem, though, is that you seem to think the best way to deal with this is to give all of the power to them and make sure there is no other entity overseeing their activities.

No matter what political system, big government, small government, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship...the people who hold economic power hold political power. It's beguiling that you don't seem to recognize this.

People cannot make good, logical decisions when their information is controlled by either political or economic entities with a vested interest in their deception. Again, you find that it's fine for businesses to control what we know, not government. I don't see how that is better.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
jack2765(2) Disputed
1 point

Really? A small grocer can afford to up and move a building far enough away from a Walmart to not feel it's presence.

Walmart was not 3.5, it was 18% margins

People have a say? BS!!!! Not unless you are a majority shareholder. Most of these companies don't need a shareholder vote to make decisions.

Big corporations raise living standards? Are you f-ing kidding me?!!! When Walmart puts out and Albertson's and 60-150 people who have the opportunity to make 14-16 per hour and replace it with 9 dollar per hour jobs that is raising a living standard? Buddy I've lived on both sides (being at the bottom of the food chain and the top) of this and you have got this all wrong.

2 years ago | Side: Bad
Spoonerism(825) Disputed
0 points

I'm only going to respond to your first point, because quite frankly it's all I have the patience for at this time.

Reasons big box stores are successful:

1-They are 2-3 times bigger than any previous small business model of that type could hope to be.

2-They buy so much stuff to pack their thousands of shelves that retailers are compelled to give them a hefty discount on their purchases.

3-They cut their prices so low that no small-town business could hope to compete

Basically, they're bullies of the market world. They come in with so much buying power that competitors are basically knocked out without so much as a fair fight.

Oh, and they spend billions of dollars in advertising each year!

3 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

What's the alternative? People aren't the same, they're smarter or dumber. Capitalism models people fairly well. We're greedy and selfish and we want the water hole. There's a natural pecking order and corporations have flourishing in the waters of separation. It certainly looks like the direction is towards a single pan-global corporation running everything including a 'world government'. Is this necessarily a bad thing for the human race? Does it really have to turn out to be 1984 or a Brave New World dystopian nightmare?

6 years ago | Side: Bad

An alternative to Capitalism is already being practiced by every single developed, western nation. We no longer live in a Capitalist society; perhaps moreso than Canada, Europe, and Japan, but our economy is thoroughly socialistic these days. We do not live in a free market, we havn't since the New Deal, and it has done us mostly good.

Our standard of living has risen dramatically since the introduction of welfare, stock market controls, regulation, pollution controls, social security..etc..etc..

Capitalism does not model people well at all; it models some people well, but the vast majority of people can be both greedy and generous; good and evil, selfish and selfless.

Do you really think the men and women in our armed forces are in that job for the pay? Do you really think teachers chose that career path for the riches? What of the numerous polls and surveys that indicate people would take a pay cut in order to spend more time with friends and family.

Capitalism appeals to a very small aspect of our humanity, we care about a number of other things above and over money and wealth.

I believe an alternative can be found that both allows for a market-driven economy which rewards productive and innovative behavior while also protecting individuals and keeping wealth concentration from getting out of hand.

A truly worker-run economy, an economy of small businesses, family businesses and farms, non-profits, and cooperatives can completely replace our current system (and probably improve it). With wealth spread out and economy power in the hands of many instead of few we'd probably see a higher degree of innovation and a much better government.

If you hadn't noticed, innovation in most industries and services tends to occur at its highest rate in the developing stages, when there are a large number of competing entities. Because of the pressure to survive and the larger number of people who have a direct say in how things are run we see a plurality of ways and ideas to tackle various problems.

Stagnation tends to occur when a handful of enterprises manage to eat up the market.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
4 points

Big corporations aren't inherently bad, but because of the pressures of capitalism they nearly always follow the same negative path in the end. A corporation's job is to make a profit it doesn't really matter how they make it or what they make as long as it makes a profit, and thus corporations don't encourage innovation unless it is truly needed. Why would a corporation risk a possible loss of profit on innovation when what they currently sell produces a profit?

We have seen with the automobile industry that they are not willing to work on innovation until it becomes in the short term profitable. It is obvious that in the long term(decade or more from now), and now in the short term that hybrid vehicles and vehicles with better gas millage are better, and can become profitable, especially in a few years when oil becomes more scarce. the corporations didn't feel a need to innovate in the 90s or a few years back because at the time it didn't seem profitable compared to large SUVs and cars with poor gas mileage.

Some may say that it isn't the purpose of corporations to worry about society and maybe it isn't but if we let corporations have such power over politics then they need to be responsible and beneficial to society. corporations in politics corrupts politics even more. At least in America many will argue that smoking is bad and unhealthy for society as well as the individual but little is seriously done. when was the last time you heard a major politician, especially during election time, arguing against the tobacco corporation let alone actually taking action against it?

Corporations further imperialistic actions by the US government against other nations, as well as those the US government is supposed to be repairing. corporations don't work to help society they work to make money, it is simple and while they may not be intentionally harming other nations and peoples they aren't working to help those people. If the money stops rolling in the corporations will leave. If the corporations do a bad job with their work, and are challenged they will not accept that they failed, they will fight in court until their is a victor, and usually that is the corporation, be it corruption or just vast cash reserves and good lawyers.

Corporate control of the media undermines democracy and and is bound to have bias towards the company if not a political party. Before anyone says that the corporations don't have a bias because they don't brainwash us with images and messages of their products i think we can all realize that they aren't that stupid. as long as a willing political party, or a political party with bias to a corporation has some power that corporation doesn't need to brainwash the majority of American citizens with its products. all it needs to do is control what the citizens know and thus how they react at election time or during any time that strong political action will take places, such as invading another country.

Many American's think that Venezuela is bad, that Cuba is bad, that Palestine is bad and that the Russians can't be trusted but that is because they are only showed images of people of the such nationalities as doing evil things(or things that act against capitalism). they are told that hugo Chavez wants to destroy capitalism and that he hates Americans. they aren't told or shown that American capitalism and its respective corporations have done all they can to stop or prevent Hugo Chavez from realizing is socialist goal. why doess the media do this because the corporations that control it know that its what certain politicians want and if those politicians get elected than they know they will have many contracts in the years to come.

Capitalism forces corporations to make a profit, they are not willing to help society because doing so might risk their profit. Pharmacies aren't going to make the next true breakthrough because sick people generate money for pharmacies so any political action that threatens to harm pharmacies is destroyed because it is not in the interest of those respective corporations. corporations are a major tool of capitalism and capitalism doesn't work without classes of poor, middle and rich. capitalism will never work to stop poverty because it will mean the end of capitalism and seeing as corporations are a tool of capitalism they aren't going to work to help society because it might harm their continued survival let alone the survival of capitalism and in the end corporations are all about profit for that is why they exist.

6 years ago | Side: Bad

Case in point, because of the lack of foresight on the part of Chrysler Saint Louis's already shrinking manufacturing base will take another hit: they are closing a minivan plant and putting over a thousand out of work.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/30/news/companies/chrysler_cuts.ap/index.htm?eref=ib_topstories

I live in Saint Louis; we don't need another factory shut-down. We are already in a panic over one of our larger employers, Busch beer, being taken over by a foreign firm. If that happens we could see it move out of the city; we've already had to wrangle with the company for the longest time, giving it tax breaks and incentives, to stay here.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
2 points

I think corporations that are multi national are bad. It is unfair to the working people in this society to have these businesses exploiting the cheap labor and resources in another country and reselling them in our country. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to purchase goods and materials from businesses in other countries but a person shouldn't be able to own a business in America and one overseas.

If they are selling their goods in America as an American business they should have to follow American employment laws. Owning businesses outside of America allows corporations to circumvent American laws. It also robs the hosting countries because they can't claim ownership to the products they produce in order to sell them for competitive prices. If American corporations want to sell foreign produced goods they should have to buy them from the foreign countries/businesses and pay tariffs on the products.

The fact that big corporations do exploit cheap labor from other countries shows us how dangerous their size and multi nationality is. No longer are these corporations willing to work by the rules of our government. It is clear that they are not loyal to America and yet we are allowing them to expand out of control. We even pay them almost $150 Billion a year in corporate welfare. I just wonder if these corporations would still be in America if we ever hit a severe depression; but I guess they might if they could exploit us for cheap labor.

I believe in a free-market. But I don't believe we should allow it to be manipulated by businesses bigger than our market. If a business is operating in America it should only operate in America. They would have to consider the implications of their actions if they are dependent on our market. If a corporation is multi national they are less affected by America's economy and thus less reflective of that economy.

6 years ago | Side: Good by Default
2 points

The core problem with corporations is that we turn over enormous economic and political power to entities over which we have no control, power which rightfully belongs with the elected government, which is us.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

Big corporations are not universally bad, indeed many large corporations contribute to the high level of convenience we enjoy as consumers. A large corporation holds powerful buying power that is returned to consumers as low, affordable prices on various necessary or unnecessary products. Large corporations also facilitate the delivery of cultural meccas such as motion pictures and television programs. Without large, big profit corporations it would be difficult to be entertained by high budget shows such as Heroes or Grey's Anatomy every week.

Having said that, the corporate structure that is so pervasive in our economy dispenses a unique brand of social, political and environmental injustices on an unwitting public.

Corporations are bound to the will of the share holder, whose primary investment goal is to see their stock. For this reason the corporate structure must remain in a perpetual state of growth to ensure continued investment. A CEO of any given corporation will particularly feel the heat to grow. Considering the often short life span of their jobs, CEO will be more than motivated to make a large profits in a short period of time.

Big profits and continuous growth leads the corporate world to seek whatever advantage is available. If labourers will work for literally peanuts in South Asia, then setting up a factory overseas just makes good business sense. Of course there is little concern for working conditions or fair wages, that sort of defeats the purpose.

Regulations, particularly those pesky environmental ones, are sometimes view as road blocks to a windfall of profit. While there maybe some regulations in place that are unfair to business, the majority of regulations are in place to protect the environment, or uphold fair business practices. Corporations have the ability, however, have a disproportionate voice compared to the people to lobby for their interests through the government. To lobby isn't always a bad thing, but a corporation will typically be able to afford smarter, more experienced lobbyists than say an environmental group.

Large corporations aren't a bad thing, but there needs to be a better balance between their needs and the needs of the environment, and the environment.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

The only ones who have a logical argument is the people at the top of these corporations. Sure, they create jobs, but the people who used to be middle class working at these jobs are losing more and more every year while the CEO's keep making more. Prime example would be Walmart. A department head at Walmart will make between 11-14$ per hour. Store managers can make up to 200k. Another example, Albertsons used to pay their grocery managers and department heads 60-70k per year. Now a starting grocery manager can expect to make 42k per year, and a department head will make about 33k. Now tell me these corporations are helping us out. These jobs used to be able to support a four person household. Not anymore! And who is reaping the benny's out of this? The stockholders and higher level management. Wake up America! If you look back 15 years ago at these wages you could have a pretty comfortable living situation. Especially since housing was only a fraction of what it is today, gasoline was 99 cents, food was literally half the cost. The middle class getting the shaft for 15 years! Sure would be nice if we ever got some of the middle class into our government to run things for a change!!!!!

2 years ago | Side: Bad
0 points

Big Corporations are driven by profit alone. They are legally bound to do what is most profitable, otherwise their shareholders could sue. Big Corporations don't care if you have fast internet or cable tv. They only care about you giving your money to them. They'll fire you and outsource because it makes their margins better. They don't really care about their employees, they don't really care about values. If you want cheap stuff then they're good, but don't think about what corners were cut to get you it cheap.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
4 points

The profit motive is not a legitimate attack on "big corporations." The facts are that what is profitable correlates directly with consumers needs. Some companies do cut corners, it's true. And they are usually very open about it, and if not health agencies or product reviewers will normally catch on and report it.

In other words, it allows the educated consumer the choice between super cheap (in every sense of the word) stuff, or competitively priced good stuff. In reality, if competition wasn't a factor the people buying the low quality stuff now would probably not be able to afford any such stuff at all.

Milton Friedman - Greed

6 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

That's a sweet interview because the interviewer askes the question that we all think of, and then the interviewee gives the most logical answer to the question and is honest about it... and he's right.

While I wish that humanity's success didn't stem from greed, I have to say that greed is stable and quite dedicated to sustaining itself.

6 years ago | Side: Good
0 points

Oh, and also this is about "big corporations." Small corporations run on profit too, you know. And as Milton points out, so does the state.

6 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

Big corporation (and also their shareholder) cares about "long term" profit. That explains why they will not encourage opportunistic behaviour. CEOs of big corporation, on the other hands, are driven by power. They might mis-use the power of The big corporation. if it happens, big corporation hopelessly become related culprit of the plot.

So the best way is to make sure no Big Corporation monopolize the market they are in.

6 years ago | Side: Good
0 points

Big corporations crush small companies stopping them from becoming bigger. They exploit forien workers paying them very little amounts of money. Also big corporations are corrupt and can effect government decisions eg. when george bush started the war on terror he made ALOT of money from the shares he had with the defence contractors.

5 years ago | Side: Bad


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.