jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

Have you considered participating in the efforts of John Perkins to redefine cor

  1. Perspycacious profile image82
    Perspycaciousposted 17 months ago

    Have you considered participating in the efforts of John Perkins to redefine corporations' goals?

    John Perkins just spoke to the World Affairs Council in Washington, DC stating that 62 people have as many personal assets as 50% of all today's world population at a critical time for the future of our children and grandchildren.  He and his organization are urging that corporations return a reasonable profit for their investors but at the same time refocus on broader objectives to do the things they can to make the world a more habitable place with greater opportunity and real promise of security, happiness, and well-being for all mankind.  Read more about this and this unusual American.

  2. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 17 months ago

    No. To paraphrase Peter Drucker, businesses only succeed when they have one goal, one mission, deliver X with specific conditions like price, quality, attitude.
    Adding further social mandates interferes with their ability to meet their prime objective ... and it is readily used by the state or social groups to use the business as an extension of the welfare state.
    In short, they want to add social mandates to the business so they can tap into that revenue source, use the business' leverage as employer or supplier to force others to follow their stated political goals. Look at Obama's federal contracting guidelines that give preference to companies that meet the Out and Equal Index, leading companies to socially engineer the workforce and have diversity training calling heterosexuals inherently phobic, all to get preference for federal contract dollars. And the big companies, to get the contracts, push the same requirements onto smaller companies, who often obey in order to get the money.
    What if it is just government mandates to meet certain goals like "social justice" or other political agendas? This turns into government intervention into every level of the business, saying who to hire or fire, what the rules in the workplace can be, commands to donate X to Y charity or get shut down. That is fascism, just with a nicer name this time, but still by government force.

    TLDR - no, don't co-opt businesses for work that should be done by non-profits, and the government intervening in every detail of business is fascism. We have to stop this, not encourage it.

  3. lovemychris profile image60
    lovemychrisposted 17 months ago

    would be nice, but you have to undo 40 years of reagonomics. when i was a kid, corporations did care. about their workers, about the world....it changed in the 80's, and weve been on this trickle up path since. its really highway robbery and worse. but you saw what  happened to occupy wall street and any anti war protests....they sick the world cyborg police on them.
    a whole mindset has to change. and i dont know if enough people are willing. weve got a guy who's had a free ride running for prez for gods sake! one of those guys perkins is talking about!

  4. MizBejabbers profile image91
    MizBejabbersposted 17 months ago

    I believe that the voluntary effort of Bill and Melinda Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, et al is a good thing. There is nothing communistic or socialistic about it because it is not a government-sponsored initiative. A group of billionaires have pledged to "give back to the world" for their good fortunes. Right now the Gates and Zuckerbergs are sponsoring the "Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group of more than 20 billionaires who have agreed to invest in innovative clean energy." Now these guys are doing it right.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan … ab53173808

    I saw a program on cable TV about this coalition of billionaires, and they said they have other projects in mind also, such as schools in Africa. I'm not sure if John Perkins is involved with them.

 
working