I remember reading 19th century novels and being glad that America did not have the idle class like the British gentry. But that's what our investor class is, isn't it?
I take exception to the idea that the contract-enactors and others in companies (large or small) "are neither greedy nor are they socially responsible. They’re merely doing what they understand to be their jobs." Every one of us is responsible for our own behavior (both what we do and what we don't do). This notion that we are not is a primary accelerant of horrible behavior on a regular basis. To set it in high relief, "I was just doing my job" is merely a softer sounding version of "I was just following orders." How a company behaves is nothing more or less than the sum of how its people behave. This is the central problem with capitalism. We get into trouble with capitalism because we more or less treat it as if it is an everything-system when it is just a partial definition of an economic system, and people have more than economic needs. Since capitalism pursues profit at any cost, it should be entirely unsurprising that when left unchecked it will devour the planet, abuse workers, and even do harm to customers. Selling addictive drugs is well within the bounds of capitalism. So is murder. So is ecocide. What puts these things off limits is not capitalism itself, but non-capitalist forces imposed to constrain it. Ending slavery, or child labor, or choosing to sell widgets instead of cocaine ... these things are not products of capitalism. They are products of us imposing limits on capitalism. We have always constrained trade so that it complies with the wishes of some king or some congress or some unlegislated sense of decency, or some fear of retaliation. There is no actual debate on whether or not we should or will regulate capitalism. There is debate on what principles and methods will be employed. That debate is primarily populated by people leaning toward responsible behavior and those leaning hard away from it. We mustn't ever support the idea that people are not responsible for being irresponsible.
We're each responsible for our own conduct, of course. I don't absolve all the actors in capitalism of their moral responsibilities. I mean only to say that many of the jobs that keep capitalism going are not clearly immoral. The moral factor has been laundered out. While an accountant who's told to find tax loopholes for a big corporation -- and does so -- is acting against the common good, an accountant who merely handles the books of a big corporation is not necessarily acting immorally, even if the corporation is selling pharmaceuticals at prices that are multiples of their costs. The point is to change the system of laws and rules so that we don't have to rely entirely on individual morality, and the the rules of the game reflect the common good.
Thank you, Mr. Reich. We agree that companies and individuals are entitled to use the tax code and other regulations in a way that optimizes their own circumstances, and the regulations themselves should keep things "in range". That said, your confidence in the human ability to create such regulations appears to be much greater than mine. There is no evidence that one can legislate decency or compassion, only that we can place questionable limits on indecency and the most grotesque lacks of compassion. Laws can only say things like "it's okay to pay no taxes if you are really wealthy -- here's how" or "it's not okay to kill other people, except when I say so (war, capital punishment, a collective blind eye for excessive force by police)." Laws cannot oblige people to operate in an actively positive moral way. That remains on us.
Oh, and that being the case, the accountant who works for a price-gouging pharmaceuticals company is not, in my mind, in an amoral position. He is aiding and abetting immoral behavior.
“The point is to change the system of laws and rules so that we don't have to rely entirely on individual morality, and the the rules of the game reflect the common good.” Temptations rule. Can’t just leave it as is
Think this touches even closer to the reality that must be dealt with. Our experience in the real world shows capitalism is at best an anachronism. Real world experience shows that executives, and coerced and/or compliant managers and workers, have generally devolved from a degree of caring regardless of the system in place, to oblivious but compliant, to more and more hatred fueled (sobS). Need Radical change (or a miracle like messiah), Not the temptations of this capitalism, or we continue forward to the next extinction. The latter will be physically painful for those this is passed on to, by us. Mr. Reich is certainly being diplomatic or reasonably charitable, and maybe reasonable restraint and incrementalism is the smart effective way to progress, dealing with the rage we feel in some other productive way
There are so many excellent comments in this feed and much thanks to Dr. Reich. I suggest that the time has come for a new paradigm, a system beyond high growth capitalism, where the corporations, and trusts we create are no longer dependent on fast growth and high margins to meet the metrics for financial institutions to be considered successful. We have been riding the train of unbridled capitalism far too long. We no longer have the trust in our legislative government, our economic system which no longer fairly distributes wealth among the general population, and our social institutions have become diminished and untrustworthy. Continued angst over our continued inability to govern our corporations/trusts needs to be dealt with a new strategy. It was an exciting time for U S Capitalism after WW2, but that glow of being on the cutting edge of a system well designed to benefit the majority has been greatly diminished.
Well said. I would edit the sentence, “How a company behaves is nothing more or less than the sum of how its people behave” to “the sum of how its executives behave.” How executives behave (greed, bullying, micromanaging, etc. vs supportive, humane, skillbuilding, etc.) is how the management as a whole will behave. And executives do tend to be greedy—for themselves.
I generally concur, but it also matters how the customer service rep behaves, how line managers behave, ... so I left it more general. To bring it around to your point again, it has been my observation in both small and large companies that the personality of the CEO permeates an organization much more that one would expect. This happens by virtue of who they hire, who they promote, what behavior they reward, what behavior they display, and the overall tone they set. And yes, a lot of people place personal gains ahead of goodness shared by the larger group.
Joy Beaver suggested sending a note of support to President Biden. I did. Thanks for the suggestion. At the end I shared a sort of mantra that came to me many years ago which I try and live by. It helps me keep my vision clear and my heart working. the saying: ...soften your heart ...heal the world.
It grieves me to read again about how big business is hurting the average worker's well being. We need strong federal laws to protect workers so they can thrive. Workers are the backbone of our country not the CEO's of corporations with stock portfolios. Congress needs to pass Biden's agenda which will lift up the lives of our citizens and begin to fight the effects of the changing climate before it's too late. Also congress needs to pass voting reform to protect the votes of all voters.
Corporations are not socially responsible if their bottom line rules every decision. I wonder who believes them? It's a shame that our Supreme Court gave them the 'Citizens United' status.
We've all worked or heard of companies who give their workers a one time "bonus" and boast how wonderfully they treat their workers. It has nothing to do with rewarding workers, if they really wanted to do that they'd give them raises. This is exactly what they're doing today on a larger scale to protect their profits. The last thing they want are regulations and tax hikes that will hit their bottom line. I don't buy into their marketing ploy and hope most people don't either. We need to call them out.
Beware those nicely dressed women on TV who assure us that natural gas and oil will help keep us energy independent, but of course dependent on Big Oil here. This is a form of virtue shading that seems to go on forever.
As usual Robert I completely agree with you on the responsibility of corporations, after all that is why they were created. To make money and avoid taxes, period.
The ordinary people's voices is insignificant to corporate input because money talks and there are probably no lobbyists running around for the people.
I wonder if our politicians even bother to register the common folks objections
I keep donating for the HR1 bill but feel I am just throwing money into a pit
You are a treasure. So thankful for your insights. You articulate so clearly some of the many swirling thoughts (and fears) in my head. Even though the information is alarming- it is calming to find that others have similar priorities and perspectives.
Looking back on history I see this as evolving: Neglect by corporations to promote social responsibility + people in positions of power negating to act "for the common good" = further destruction the Earth and masses. (masses x despair) + (conflict, war) = destruction to the 10th power for all rich, poor, and in-between. Result is the uprising of survivalists masses who will begin the status quo all over, again.
I remember reading 19th century novels and being glad that America did not have the idle class like the British gentry. But that's what our investor class is, isn't it?
I take exception to the idea that the contract-enactors and others in companies (large or small) "are neither greedy nor are they socially responsible. They’re merely doing what they understand to be their jobs." Every one of us is responsible for our own behavior (both what we do and what we don't do). This notion that we are not is a primary accelerant of horrible behavior on a regular basis. To set it in high relief, "I was just doing my job" is merely a softer sounding version of "I was just following orders." How a company behaves is nothing more or less than the sum of how its people behave. This is the central problem with capitalism. We get into trouble with capitalism because we more or less treat it as if it is an everything-system when it is just a partial definition of an economic system, and people have more than economic needs. Since capitalism pursues profit at any cost, it should be entirely unsurprising that when left unchecked it will devour the planet, abuse workers, and even do harm to customers. Selling addictive drugs is well within the bounds of capitalism. So is murder. So is ecocide. What puts these things off limits is not capitalism itself, but non-capitalist forces imposed to constrain it. Ending slavery, or child labor, or choosing to sell widgets instead of cocaine ... these things are not products of capitalism. They are products of us imposing limits on capitalism. We have always constrained trade so that it complies with the wishes of some king or some congress or some unlegislated sense of decency, or some fear of retaliation. There is no actual debate on whether or not we should or will regulate capitalism. There is debate on what principles and methods will be employed. That debate is primarily populated by people leaning toward responsible behavior and those leaning hard away from it. We mustn't ever support the idea that people are not responsible for being irresponsible.
We're each responsible for our own conduct, of course. I don't absolve all the actors in capitalism of their moral responsibilities. I mean only to say that many of the jobs that keep capitalism going are not clearly immoral. The moral factor has been laundered out. While an accountant who's told to find tax loopholes for a big corporation -- and does so -- is acting against the common good, an accountant who merely handles the books of a big corporation is not necessarily acting immorally, even if the corporation is selling pharmaceuticals at prices that are multiples of their costs. The point is to change the system of laws and rules so that we don't have to rely entirely on individual morality, and the the rules of the game reflect the common good.
Thank you, Mr. Reich. We agree that companies and individuals are entitled to use the tax code and other regulations in a way that optimizes their own circumstances, and the regulations themselves should keep things "in range". That said, your confidence in the human ability to create such regulations appears to be much greater than mine. There is no evidence that one can legislate decency or compassion, only that we can place questionable limits on indecency and the most grotesque lacks of compassion. Laws can only say things like "it's okay to pay no taxes if you are really wealthy -- here's how" or "it's not okay to kill other people, except when I say so (war, capital punishment, a collective blind eye for excessive force by police)." Laws cannot oblige people to operate in an actively positive moral way. That remains on us.
Oh, and that being the case, the accountant who works for a price-gouging pharmaceuticals company is not, in my mind, in an amoral position. He is aiding and abetting immoral behavior.
“The point is to change the system of laws and rules so that we don't have to rely entirely on individual morality, and the the rules of the game reflect the common good.” Temptations rule. Can’t just leave it as is
& thereby change the norm
Think this touches even closer to the reality that must be dealt with. Our experience in the real world shows capitalism is at best an anachronism. Real world experience shows that executives, and coerced and/or compliant managers and workers, have generally devolved from a degree of caring regardless of the system in place, to oblivious but compliant, to more and more hatred fueled (sobS). Need Radical change (or a miracle like messiah), Not the temptations of this capitalism, or we continue forward to the next extinction. The latter will be physically painful for those this is passed on to, by us. Mr. Reich is certainly being diplomatic or reasonably charitable, and maybe reasonable restraint and incrementalism is the smart effective way to progress, dealing with the rage we feel in some other productive way
There are so many excellent comments in this feed and much thanks to Dr. Reich. I suggest that the time has come for a new paradigm, a system beyond high growth capitalism, where the corporations, and trusts we create are no longer dependent on fast growth and high margins to meet the metrics for financial institutions to be considered successful. We have been riding the train of unbridled capitalism far too long. We no longer have the trust in our legislative government, our economic system which no longer fairly distributes wealth among the general population, and our social institutions have become diminished and untrustworthy. Continued angst over our continued inability to govern our corporations/trusts needs to be dealt with a new strategy. It was an exciting time for U S Capitalism after WW2, but that glow of being on the cutting edge of a system well designed to benefit the majority has been greatly diminished.
Well said. I would edit the sentence, “How a company behaves is nothing more or less than the sum of how its people behave” to “the sum of how its executives behave.” How executives behave (greed, bullying, micromanaging, etc. vs supportive, humane, skillbuilding, etc.) is how the management as a whole will behave. And executives do tend to be greedy—for themselves.
I generally concur, but it also matters how the customer service rep behaves, how line managers behave, ... so I left it more general. To bring it around to your point again, it has been my observation in both small and large companies that the personality of the CEO permeates an organization much more that one would expect. This happens by virtue of who they hire, who they promote, what behavior they reward, what behavior they display, and the overall tone they set. And yes, a lot of people place personal gains ahead of goodness shared by the larger group.
I appreciate you and your perspective. Always on target. I wish you had run for President! Thank you for who you are and all you do!
Joy Beaver suggested sending a note of support to President Biden. I did. Thanks for the suggestion. At the end I shared a sort of mantra that came to me many years ago which I try and live by. It helps me keep my vision clear and my heart working. the saying: ...soften your heart ...heal the world.
It grieves me to read again about how big business is hurting the average worker's well being. We need strong federal laws to protect workers so they can thrive. Workers are the backbone of our country not the CEO's of corporations with stock portfolios. Congress needs to pass Biden's agenda which will lift up the lives of our citizens and begin to fight the effects of the changing climate before it's too late. Also congress needs to pass voting reform to protect the votes of all voters.
Thank you for the work you do and the part you play in education me and the general population.
I'd list Patagonia as an exception; and some of the B-Corps. (No person or company is perfect, we can always find flaws and ways to improve.)
But I fully agree about the need to change laws, for the common good!
Lots of behavior is individually 'rational' but collectively irrational. The goal of good laws and regulations is to rectify this.
Corporations are not socially responsible if their bottom line rules every decision. I wonder who believes them? It's a shame that our Supreme Court gave them the 'Citizens United' status.
We've all worked or heard of companies who give their workers a one time "bonus" and boast how wonderfully they treat their workers. It has nothing to do with rewarding workers, if they really wanted to do that they'd give them raises. This is exactly what they're doing today on a larger scale to protect their profits. The last thing they want are regulations and tax hikes that will hit their bottom line. I don't buy into their marketing ploy and hope most people don't either. We need to call them out.
Beware those nicely dressed women on TV who assure us that natural gas and oil will help keep us energy independent, but of course dependent on Big Oil here. This is a form of virtue shading that seems to go on forever.
Exceptionalism
It's great bein a Corporation
Social conscience gets to take a vacation . .
Profit gets all your might
and you get Free Speech rights . .
and pretty soon your own space stations . .
As usual Robert I completely agree with you on the responsibility of corporations, after all that is why they were created. To make money and avoid taxes, period.
Agreed. Well said.
Thanks for your input Mr. Reich.
The ordinary people's voices is insignificant to corporate input because money talks and there are probably no lobbyists running around for the people.
I wonder if our politicians even bother to register the common folks objections
I keep donating for the HR1 bill but feel I am just throwing money into a pit
Re. politicians even bothering: unsurprisingly in the current system, they don’t- See the famous Princeton study done recently. Gotta get money out
You are a treasure. So thankful for your insights. You articulate so clearly some of the many swirling thoughts (and fears) in my head. Even though the information is alarming- it is calming to find that others have similar priorities and perspectives.
Looking back on history I see this as evolving: Neglect by corporations to promote social responsibility + people in positions of power negating to act "for the common good" = further destruction the Earth and masses. (masses x despair) + (conflict, war) = destruction to the 10th power for all rich, poor, and in-between. Result is the uprising of survivalists masses who will begin the status quo all over, again.