Thursday, June 12, 2008
With the worst electoral matchup at least since Ford-Carter, if not Smith-Hoover in 1932 now official, the Pendragon decidedly turns my back on it and ask my readers to consider the true nature of business. As with the military, understanding the true nature of this enterprise will help to guard us against disappointment when it doesn't live up to our imaginary expectations.
Put simply, the end of business is to make money. I work as a supervisor in a chain bookstore and I deal with this all the time--customers who think the goal of the store should be to save them money, or employees who think that the goal of the business is to provide them with free stuff and vastly discounted goods. I would love it if that were true, but the fact is, the only goal for a business is to make money. Is it immoral? It's amoral at least--nothing good or evil about it. If a business chooses to make money in a way that is illegal or immoral, then certainly sanctions are in order. I am not in favor of unleashing pure laissez-faire, but I believe that since the goal of business is to make money, we should not expect businessmen to worry about how to house the homeless, cure diseases or anything else of that sort. If a businessman or woman does it, that is a bonus and a personal responsibility, not a fiscal one. It is a business' responsibility to make money; it is the responsibility of an individual human to take care of others. But when we expect corporations to ignore what their own purpose is, we open ourselves to great disappointment when either they do not, or they try to balance both and end up satisfying neither. We also open the door to allowing individuals to get out of their responsibility. If big business with all its money is responsible for the poor, how do you get Bill-Next-Door working a blue-collar job to help out his less-fortunate counterparts? So as the buck passes back and forth while the financially-challenged sit and wait for help and business gets blasted for ignoring obligations it never had. But an understanding of the role of business will help the poor more than legislating the crap out of it.
Put simply, the end of business is to make money. I work as a supervisor in a chain bookstore and I deal with this all the time--customers who think the goal of the store should be to save them money, or employees who think that the goal of the business is to provide them with free stuff and vastly discounted goods. I would love it if that were true, but the fact is, the only goal for a business is to make money. Is it immoral? It's amoral at least--nothing good or evil about it. If a business chooses to make money in a way that is illegal or immoral, then certainly sanctions are in order. I am not in favor of unleashing pure laissez-faire, but I believe that since the goal of business is to make money, we should not expect businessmen to worry about how to house the homeless, cure diseases or anything else of that sort. If a businessman or woman does it, that is a bonus and a personal responsibility, not a fiscal one. It is a business' responsibility to make money; it is the responsibility of an individual human to take care of others. But when we expect corporations to ignore what their own purpose is, we open ourselves to great disappointment when either they do not, or they try to balance both and end up satisfying neither. We also open the door to allowing individuals to get out of their responsibility. If big business with all its money is responsible for the poor, how do you get Bill-Next-Door working a blue-collar job to help out his less-fortunate counterparts? So as the buck passes back and forth while the financially-challenged sit and wait for help and business gets blasted for ignoring obligations it never had. But an understanding of the role of business will help the poor more than legislating the crap out of it.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 10:46 AM 
