The things you own end up owning you.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.

-Fight Club

Now, sure, it's fiction. Yet at the same time, that seems to be an accurate description of how companies behave. That is, they'll be interested in the well-being of their customers only insofar as if they aren't interested, they'll lose money.

So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?

It seems to me that this is exactly how companies behave. Their interest is profit and they are willing to let people suffer to make profit--their only concern is if the suffering they cause will hurt their profits--then they will try to stop the suffering. Companies have entire PR campaigns to help their profits. It's a sad and true fact that pharmaceutical companies spend 4.4B/year on advertisements and only 4.2B/year on research&development

So just what is it about the free market that will keep corporations from fucking over the little guys?

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And pharma ad campaigns are especially comical. People sitting around at nightclubs saying "The use of combination oral contraceptives is associated with increased risks of several serious side effects, including blood clots, which may lead to stroke or heart attack. NuvaRing® is not for women with a history of these conditions. The risk of getting blood clots may be greater with the type of progestin in NuvaRing than with some other progestins in certain low-dose birth control pills. It is unknown if the risk of blood clots is different with NuvaRing® use than with the use of certain birth control pills. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects, especially in women over 35; women who use combination hormonal contraceptives, including NuvaRing®, are strongly advised not to smoke. NuvaRing® is not for women with certain cancers or those who may be pregnant. NuvaRing® does not protect against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases. The most common side effects reported by NuvaRing® users are: vaginal infections and irritation, vaginal secretion, headache, weight gain, and nausea. You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088." 'Cuz everbody talks like that all the time!!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The best is when "side effects may include....death"

My jaw couldn't drop much further when I heard that one (it was for a sleep-aid)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Before you die, you see the NuvaRing.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

According to editorials in the Orange County Register, the Free Market is not only sentient, but benevolent and self-correcting so we should just trust that it will all work out.

/Regulation is the Libertarian Devil

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Reject the basic assumptions of civilization, especially the importance of material possessions.

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

Corporations have a responsibility to their stock holders to be as strategic and savy as they can in their business dealings in order to produce the most profits. That does not necessarily lead to 'fucking over the little guys' since I am aware of some companies that DO support their workers, DO support their communities, and strive to be 'good'.

But they do seem to be cases of exception rather than the rule, because it is harder to do business if you have higher ethical standards than is required by current regulations. It causes less problems over the long run, if you do have those standards (because consumer support will be stronger and more consistant), but the short term 'me first' planning is far more lucrative (marketing the latest-greatest, even if it isn't worth it).

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

The important word in your sentence above is "some." Time after time after time, we need horrific results from companies (massive, multi-national ones) literally destroying people's entire livelihoods for the sake of a few years of profit.

You're absolutely right, they ARE the exception, Google, IAC, etc are companies with a consistent habit of treating their employees quite well. Yet the Enrons, WorldComs, AIGs etc are unfortunately far larger, and far more "dastardly."

Libertarians will cry that the free market would allow people to choose to work for the "good" companies, and thereby harm the "bad" companies or force them to improve their practices. Unfortunately the whole idea of rubbish and has never, EVER been born out in practice.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But they do seem to be cases of exception rather than the rule, because it is harder to do business if you have higher ethical standards than is required by current regulations.

Welcome to the race to the bottom created by the regulatory state. It no longer becomes about "as safe as possible," but instead "as safe as necessary to pass the government standards."

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

So just what is it about the free market that will keep corporations from fucking over the little guys?

free choice.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

As in post:

So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?"

Some.

They just make the others look better.

In this age of increased communications (web, tweet, etc.) we should highlight those who do not act in such ways... and damn those who do.

That's one of the beauties of a free market.

If we had one.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Would you say that >50% of companies act that way?

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

Cue standard libertarian response about lawsuits and perfect knowledge solving these problems.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

but they know that we don't and cannot have perfect knowledge

the majority cannot have mostly complete (let alone perfect) knowledge

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Btw Toyota made a major recall or two this year. I suspect it was a PR stunt. "Here, look, we do care about you, our precious customers!"

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

True that. After that, it was found that the failures were all human error.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Exactly what is the alternative that works?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

One step at a time, kitty.

Also: if X doesn't work, and there's no alternative that works, that is not an argument for X.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?"

Yeah, pretty much: Hurricane Katrina - insurance companies


"So just what is it about the free market that will keep corporations from fucking over the little guys?"

Nothing: Hurricane Katrina - insurance company lawyers

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

any insurance company that uses the phrase "act of God" in their policy should be brought to court and prove that God exists

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

I'm more concerned about sustenance than automobiles, tbh.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

this isn't about car companies, per se, but as them being an example of how corporations behave

i mean, should i start posting about Monsanto and their genetically engineered food stuffs?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That depends largely on the company. Small businesses for example generally do not work this way. A lot of owners feel they have an obligation to those they employ and the customers they serve.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Mmm, another point perhaps worth remembering. The major ones are more likely to do this than the tiny ones. The tiny ones might fail, the major ones know that they can buy their way out of just about any problem they face.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?

Generally speaking, no. The problem is that there's a fine line between freak accident and genuine problem that needs attention, and too often the anti-corporate types think the former is the latter.

Take a look at Toyota - we've crucified them only to find that driver error was the chief problem (http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704164904575421603167046966.html). We overreact too much.

It's a sad and true fact that pharmaceutical companies spend 4.4B/year on advertisements and only 4.2B/year on research&development

You have to spend money to make money for R&D. Why ignore that point?

So just what is it about the free market that will keep corporations from fucking over the little guys?

If they fuck over the little guys too much, no one will buy from them anymore. The incentive to not fuck them over is greater.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"You have to spend money to make money for R&D. Why ignore that point?"

The point is that they spend *more money* on advertisements than on improving the quality of their product.

I'm pretty sure a company that produces a cure for cancer won't need to spend billions on marketing it--high quality products can sell themselves.

And, as for: "If they fuck over the little guys too much, no one will buy from them anymore"

So how do you explain Wal-Mart?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

In all fairness not all do this sort of thing. When I worked with Dell I remember a couple of recalls due to things that had a pretty small chance of hurting anyone. I'm sure it was Micheal Dell who made those calls, he strikes me as a decent sort. So good leadership CAN result in responsible behavior.

But yeah the general trend is when money is the primary motive sooner or later it becomes the only one. It doesn't help that corporations are legally required to be as profitable as possible.

I'm leaving for lunch, but before I do, I gotta Godwin this:

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Sure, not all companies are evil, and neither were all Nazis.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In the real world? Nothing.

[mendaciloquent.livejournal.com]

So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?

Of course. And even that is being generous. Sometimes they fuck people over even if they don't have to.

So just what is it about the free market that will keep corporations from fucking over the little guys?

Not a damn thing.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The economy has no desire to account for the wealth it strips out of society and the environment. The mutant corporatism of neo-liberalism is eating the planet and is the reason why this period of time is going to become known as "late capitalism".

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

you must live with a lot of cognitive dissonance

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, lemme just ask, do you think this is how companies behave?

No. It is how some people behave, whether they are leaders of companies or not.

This is the Ford Pinto case

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html

This is one of the reasons I'll never buy a Ford product.