My concept of stakeholder capitalism is that management takes into consideration how what they do affects their employees and customers and their communities. That is, giving stockholders the highest return possible as in Friedmanism is not the only concern of management. That's far different than giving activists free rein to change a company's practices. The younger generations are already soured on capitalism which isn't surprising given their experience with it. The lack of a moral dimension within recent variants of capitalism like Friedmanism just opens the door to "greed is good" and makes nonsense like socialism look good to others. The thing that I've always wondered about is since Friedman made it clear that he was cool with greed and that he was no conservative why do conservatives have a knee jerk reaction to defend him and his brand of capitalism?
What's the line between ambition and greed? Is there one that isn't merely a judgment?
A company that caters to its customers is a company that prospers, and if the customers want certain behaviors, the company is satisfying its bottom line by responding. Similarly, treatment of employees is something that affects the bottom line. Henry Ford paid his workers well, not because he was a good guy, but because retention via higher wages was better than constantly having to train up new workers.
No one who doesn't incur some sort of risk from bad decisions should have a say in how a company runs. That's the crux.
I'm disappointed that you don't recognize the difference beween ambition and greed. I really shouldn't have to spell that out for you. When competition exists or jobs are plentiful, then companies are incented to take good care of their employees and customers. When that's not the case, I have seen some truly awful things done to employees and customers. The worst of that I saw where a company put out an announcement that its stockholders were its highest priority. And regarding Ford, the stockholders brought suit to put the kibosh on Ford paying his employees too much in their opinion and won in court. Here's the link: https://jalopnik.com/the-dodge-v-ford-court-case-helps-explain-how-corporat-1821512982
I genuinely do not see a distinction between ambition and greed that is not a subjective measure based on one's individual opinions. One person's greed is another person's drive. It's like Obama saying "at some point you've earned enough money." Who's to judge? Moreso, what authority to coerce away from "greed" exists in "stakeholder" third parties?
With the caveat that I'm speaking solely of private-sector, free market, absent-coercion, absent-cronyism behavior.
Is your desire to do well for yourself so strong that you are willing to harm others to do so then you are talking about greed. If there is nothing in your life more important than the desire to do well for yourself then you are talking about greed. If you are the one who "dies with the most toys" and consider that to be a great outcome then you are talking about greed. It's similar to the distinction between self-interest and selfishness. When a society can no longer tell the difference then the door is open to all sorts of bad things. I would expect stockholders and management to keep watch over their desire to do well and to not cross the line into greed. Ultimately, I believe that God will decide but of course that means nothing to those who are not believers. Or, as I think about it, money is not a bad thing but the love of money is something altogether different.
**I was banned on the substack where I commented on the Richard Dawkins "trans" article, right before responding with this long comment. This is only way I figured out to get it to you:
There is a dispute over mammalian reproduction within this agenda because lies and deflections are regularly repeated. Things like "Sex is a spectrum" or "Sex is bimodal" or "What about 'intersex' disorders?!" (seen here) or hilariously even now sometimes "Sex isn't even real!"
Why is this article being written calling Richard Dawkins "hateful" and "phobic" for stating the basic truth that sex is binary and immutable? That is a dispute over mammalian reproduction, or more correctly, ideologues pushing lies about the nature of sex because the truth disproves the "trans" lie.
Next, sometimes it is stated that it is possible to be "born in the wrong body." How? Your body is you. How can it be the wrong one? Somebody out there is walking around in the body you were supposed to get, with the DNA you were mistakenly not given? How can this be proven? Can a rational person believe any of this?
There's no such thing as being born in the wrong body.
If it's possible to be born in the wrong body, why is it usually applied to men who want to live out their perversions and delusions while pretending to be women? That is autogynephilia btw (look it up).
Why can't a black person be born in the incorrect white body? Why isn't Rachel Dolezal actually black then? Why can't a dwarf be mistakenly born in a 6 foot tall man's body? Why can't a Korean be born in a white person's body? Oli London tried that for a while, then woke up (look him up). If it works for men being born in women's body, why can't it apply to other "wrong bodies"? This whole thing is preposterous.
The other lie is that somehow a female brain can end up in a male body. What's female? What is it determined by? Chromosomes/gametes. An entire body, including the brain, is female if the body has XX chromosomes/eggs. Likewise for male (XY/sperm). How did an entire body end up male except for a tiny part of the brain that, what--likes pink and can actually read? Based on what test? What proof does anybody have of this? Can a female liver end up in a male body? How about a female kidney in a male body? Nonsense.
And if "gender" is completely a social construct, then why is a test needed for biological proof? Are men being given a test to prove their "female brain" before they get surgery on their testicles and penis? Did Bruce Jenner take that test? Where's proof for any of this?
Btw, I've noticed that they've been pulling away from "female brain in a male body" recently because it necessitates two things, acknowledging that (1) sex is real, and (2) sex is binary. If sex is a spectrum or bimodal, how is there only the two options of "female" and "male" brains? Where is the test to prove where your brain is on a spectrum? That's a binary. This whole thing is idiotic.
So, you have a "hard time" believing this is a lie because you've had "contacts" with "transgendered" persons. What do you mean by "transgendered"? What qualifies someone as "transgender"?
First, you have to accurately define what "gender" is as opposed to "sex." Many have tried. No one can because it's based on a lie, namely John Money's preposterous nonsense about "gender identity." Humans don't have "gender." Only words do. As such, nobody can define or be "transgender."
I think what you probably mean is that you know a man who got the idea that he was actually a woman (What's a man? What's a woman? Define both), then he got some plastic surgery or dresses up and wears makeup to try to imitate something he cannot be. Or maybe a woman who got the idea that she was a man, took some testosterone and grew a beard, and now maybe she even passes as the opposite sex (or not).
Maybe these people are nice, you like them, and you enjoy their company. They're not "transgender" because there's no such thing. They're suffering from a mental delusion, and even if they pass, they're not what they want to be. Fool's gold isn't gold, even if it tricks people.
I've known anorexics who were nice, but they were actively starving themselves because they thought they were fat. They weren't fat. I wouldn't call them fat to be "polite." They were mentally ill. I've known schizophrenics who were nice, but sometimes they had breakdowns and thought they were Jesus. They weren't Jesus. I wouldn't call them Jesus to be "polite." They were mentally ill. Do you see where I'm going?
Lastly, it's easy to answer your question about gay people. Homosexuals exist because sex exists. Women (adult human females) can be attracted to and have sex with other women. Men (adult human males) can be attracted to and have sex with other men. That's easy to address and define because it actually exists.
This is not even a comment on the morality of homosexuality. I'm not religious at all because I'm an atheist, but even Christians who morally oppose homosexuality acknowledges that it exists because it's identifiable and definable. They just think it's sinful and shouldn't be accepted in society.
I think if you want "transgender" to taken seriously, you have to define it. I've asked a lot of questions here. The bare minimum you can do is answer the following: What's a man? What's a woman? Where is the proof that a human can "transition" from one to the other? What is "gender"?
I think those are reasonable questions to ask. Please read the two articles on my substack before trying. Crying "hate" or "bigotry" or "fascism" just won't work.
So, if I understand, greed is predicated upon doing harm to others? Wouldn't that be addressed by laws based on individual and property rights?
Or does that extend to, say, putting the guy across the street out of business by being too strong a competitor? Or to enjoying the success of your business by driving a new Cadillac instead of an old Chevy and giving the difference to your staff? Which of these are "greed" and which are not?
As for 'the most toys,' isn't that exactly the subjective measure I referred to earlier? How does another's self-indulgences affect you, or society?
But, even if I accept your "harm" metric, yours isn't the colloquial definition. When I hear people calling someone "greedy," it's along the lines of a business owner not paying "enough" to his employees, which is very much an eye-of-the-beholder attitude, which ignores market forces, and which is, as in the point I'm trying to make, being spoken by someone without skin in the game.
Shareholders have skin in the game. Stakeholders do not. Greed is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore in no way something that a society can demand its elected representatives act against.
I am in the middle of a family emergency and I'm finding that it's not only affecting my replies but accentuates the negative tone as well. Consequently, I am sorry if I crossed the line and hope for your forbearance.
This is an extension of the "butterfly in the Amazon flaps its wings" concept - that everything is connected ultimately. It's also the foundation of Keynesian economics, where cats chase rats who stole the cheese, and on and on - until you arrive at the policy prescription you really want. You are right to call it sophistry and our constitution and nature itself doesn't tolerate sophistry. Word-play. Humpty-dumpty-ism.
My concept of stakeholder capitalism is that management takes into consideration how what they do affects their employees and customers and their communities. That is, giving stockholders the highest return possible as in Friedmanism is not the only concern of management. That's far different than giving activists free rein to change a company's practices. The younger generations are already soured on capitalism which isn't surprising given their experience with it. The lack of a moral dimension within recent variants of capitalism like Friedmanism just opens the door to "greed is good" and makes nonsense like socialism look good to others. The thing that I've always wondered about is since Friedman made it clear that he was cool with greed and that he was no conservative why do conservatives have a knee jerk reaction to defend him and his brand of capitalism?
What's the line between ambition and greed? Is there one that isn't merely a judgment?
A company that caters to its customers is a company that prospers, and if the customers want certain behaviors, the company is satisfying its bottom line by responding. Similarly, treatment of employees is something that affects the bottom line. Henry Ford paid his workers well, not because he was a good guy, but because retention via higher wages was better than constantly having to train up new workers.
No one who doesn't incur some sort of risk from bad decisions should have a say in how a company runs. That's the crux.
I'm disappointed that you don't recognize the difference beween ambition and greed. I really shouldn't have to spell that out for you. When competition exists or jobs are plentiful, then companies are incented to take good care of their employees and customers. When that's not the case, I have seen some truly awful things done to employees and customers. The worst of that I saw where a company put out an announcement that its stockholders were its highest priority. And regarding Ford, the stockholders brought suit to put the kibosh on Ford paying his employees too much in their opinion and won in court. Here's the link: https://jalopnik.com/the-dodge-v-ford-court-case-helps-explain-how-corporat-1821512982
I genuinely do not see a distinction between ambition and greed that is not a subjective measure based on one's individual opinions. One person's greed is another person's drive. It's like Obama saying "at some point you've earned enough money." Who's to judge? Moreso, what authority to coerce away from "greed" exists in "stakeholder" third parties?
With the caveat that I'm speaking solely of private-sector, free market, absent-coercion, absent-cronyism behavior.
Is your desire to do well for yourself so strong that you are willing to harm others to do so then you are talking about greed. If there is nothing in your life more important than the desire to do well for yourself then you are talking about greed. If you are the one who "dies with the most toys" and consider that to be a great outcome then you are talking about greed. It's similar to the distinction between self-interest and selfishness. When a society can no longer tell the difference then the door is open to all sorts of bad things. I would expect stockholders and management to keep watch over their desire to do well and to not cross the line into greed. Ultimately, I believe that God will decide but of course that means nothing to those who are not believers. Or, as I think about it, money is not a bad thing but the love of money is something altogether different.
**I was banned on the substack where I commented on the Richard Dawkins "trans" article, right before responding with this long comment. This is only way I figured out to get it to you:
There is a dispute over mammalian reproduction within this agenda because lies and deflections are regularly repeated. Things like "Sex is a spectrum" or "Sex is bimodal" or "What about 'intersex' disorders?!" (seen here) or hilariously even now sometimes "Sex isn't even real!"
Why is this article being written calling Richard Dawkins "hateful" and "phobic" for stating the basic truth that sex is binary and immutable? That is a dispute over mammalian reproduction, or more correctly, ideologues pushing lies about the nature of sex because the truth disproves the "trans" lie.
Next, sometimes it is stated that it is possible to be "born in the wrong body." How? Your body is you. How can it be the wrong one? Somebody out there is walking around in the body you were supposed to get, with the DNA you were mistakenly not given? How can this be proven? Can a rational person believe any of this?
There's no such thing as being born in the wrong body.
If it's possible to be born in the wrong body, why is it usually applied to men who want to live out their perversions and delusions while pretending to be women? That is autogynephilia btw (look it up).
Why can't a black person be born in the incorrect white body? Why isn't Rachel Dolezal actually black then? Why can't a dwarf be mistakenly born in a 6 foot tall man's body? Why can't a Korean be born in a white person's body? Oli London tried that for a while, then woke up (look him up). If it works for men being born in women's body, why can't it apply to other "wrong bodies"? This whole thing is preposterous.
The other lie is that somehow a female brain can end up in a male body. What's female? What is it determined by? Chromosomes/gametes. An entire body, including the brain, is female if the body has XX chromosomes/eggs. Likewise for male (XY/sperm). How did an entire body end up male except for a tiny part of the brain that, what--likes pink and can actually read? Based on what test? What proof does anybody have of this? Can a female liver end up in a male body? How about a female kidney in a male body? Nonsense.
And if "gender" is completely a social construct, then why is a test needed for biological proof? Are men being given a test to prove their "female brain" before they get surgery on their testicles and penis? Did Bruce Jenner take that test? Where's proof for any of this?
Btw, I've noticed that they've been pulling away from "female brain in a male body" recently because it necessitates two things, acknowledging that (1) sex is real, and (2) sex is binary. If sex is a spectrum or bimodal, how is there only the two options of "female" and "male" brains? Where is the test to prove where your brain is on a spectrum? That's a binary. This whole thing is idiotic.
So, you have a "hard time" believing this is a lie because you've had "contacts" with "transgendered" persons. What do you mean by "transgendered"? What qualifies someone as "transgender"?
First, you have to accurately define what "gender" is as opposed to "sex." Many have tried. No one can because it's based on a lie, namely John Money's preposterous nonsense about "gender identity." Humans don't have "gender." Only words do. As such, nobody can define or be "transgender."
I think what you probably mean is that you know a man who got the idea that he was actually a woman (What's a man? What's a woman? Define both), then he got some plastic surgery or dresses up and wears makeup to try to imitate something he cannot be. Or maybe a woman who got the idea that she was a man, took some testosterone and grew a beard, and now maybe she even passes as the opposite sex (or not).
Maybe these people are nice, you like them, and you enjoy their company. They're not "transgender" because there's no such thing. They're suffering from a mental delusion, and even if they pass, they're not what they want to be. Fool's gold isn't gold, even if it tricks people.
I've known anorexics who were nice, but they were actively starving themselves because they thought they were fat. They weren't fat. I wouldn't call them fat to be "polite." They were mentally ill. I've known schizophrenics who were nice, but sometimes they had breakdowns and thought they were Jesus. They weren't Jesus. I wouldn't call them Jesus to be "polite." They were mentally ill. Do you see where I'm going?
Lastly, it's easy to answer your question about gay people. Homosexuals exist because sex exists. Women (adult human females) can be attracted to and have sex with other women. Men (adult human males) can be attracted to and have sex with other men. That's easy to address and define because it actually exists.
This is not even a comment on the morality of homosexuality. I'm not religious at all because I'm an atheist, but even Christians who morally oppose homosexuality acknowledges that it exists because it's identifiable and definable. They just think it's sinful and shouldn't be accepted in society.
I think if you want "transgender" to taken seriously, you have to define it. I've asked a lot of questions here. The bare minimum you can do is answer the following: What's a man? What's a woman? Where is the proof that a human can "transition" from one to the other? What is "gender"?
I think those are reasonable questions to ask. Please read the two articles on my substack before trying. Crying "hate" or "bigotry" or "fascism" just won't work.
Kat, Is this for me or for David?
So, if I understand, greed is predicated upon doing harm to others? Wouldn't that be addressed by laws based on individual and property rights?
Or does that extend to, say, putting the guy across the street out of business by being too strong a competitor? Or to enjoying the success of your business by driving a new Cadillac instead of an old Chevy and giving the difference to your staff? Which of these are "greed" and which are not?
As for 'the most toys,' isn't that exactly the subjective measure I referred to earlier? How does another's self-indulgences affect you, or society?
But, even if I accept your "harm" metric, yours isn't the colloquial definition. When I hear people calling someone "greedy," it's along the lines of a business owner not paying "enough" to his employees, which is very much an eye-of-the-beholder attitude, which ignores market forces, and which is, as in the point I'm trying to make, being spoken by someone without skin in the game.
Shareholders have skin in the game. Stakeholders do not. Greed is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore in no way something that a society can demand its elected representatives act against.
I am in the middle of a family emergency and I'm finding that it's not only affecting my replies but accentuates the negative tone as well. Consequently, I am sorry if I crossed the line and hope for your forbearance.
This is an extension of the "butterfly in the Amazon flaps its wings" concept - that everything is connected ultimately. It's also the foundation of Keynesian economics, where cats chase rats who stole the cheese, and on and on - until you arrive at the policy prescription you really want. You are right to call it sophistry and our constitution and nature itself doesn't tolerate sophistry. Word-play. Humpty-dumpty-ism.