Jumping Off Bridges and Playing Chicken and the Global Free Market
Written quickly and poorly but I thought the ideas were kind of clever and worth publishing. Could definitely make for a fun and interesting article with a little research and effort.
If your friend jumped off a bridge would you follow? Who never had their parents tell them this after demanding that they buy them the latest fad? Then why would you jump off a bridge if your competitors do? Welcome to the child games of global market forces. Once again two large Canadian banks want to merge, they’re justification is that they must in order to keep up with larger global competitors (watched this on CBC News Business). This is how global free market capitalism works.
Market forces could also be compared to a game of chicken with each business moving ever closer to the brink of complete and total destruction. Don’t believe me? Let’s use the environmental analysis. Who in their right mind believes that if we let the oil companies do what ever they want they wouldn’t destroy the planet. Ironically what profits could an oil company reap from an extinct planet?
Both games are illogical in virtue of their unsustainability; they were illogical when we were children because they might eventually kill us. And yet we consider them to be the accepted rules of engagement. Maybe we’re completely doomed, or maybe these are just growing pains. Capitalism is also still in its infancy but just like the rest of us it won’t grow into a fully functioning adult of it’s own. An effort needs to be made to mature it through socialization (pun intended). I don’t think letting it run wild is going to help it much.
posted by Nicholas @ 25.7.05
2 Comments:
i'm a litle confused. i'm not sure what your talking about. if they have to, companies will build green friendly buildings. walmart probably has to because everyone hates them. it's an image thing.
i would be suspicious that them calling their building green friendly is a lot like jello advertising there's no fat in jello. the building is just like all their other buildings they have only this time they call it something different; there was never any fat in jello. to put things differently, how do you build an green unfriendly building.
that being said, there's no such thing as a green friendly building especially one to the scale of a walmart. undoubtably you have to hack down a green space. this isn't just about the environment. humans need green spaces. i wouldn't doubt that walmart and other large stores like them are bad for our mental health.
now on a completely different but related matter, i have to get this off my chest. there are no walmarts on the island of montreal. having been raised in a suburb only a few blocks from one, the other day when i needed to buy a cheap pair of shoes and pants for my new job, i got in my car and drove all the way off the island to find one. anyways i'm a total corporate whore, but in time things will change! seriously... i bet you'll sit your pants when i tell you i've been a vegetarian for several weeks now : )
I like your comments about the path corperate globalization is on. It may help you to understand their logic (eventual suicide) if you understand that very few businesses are in it for the long term. They know they can't take it with them when they die. So they actually plan for only one life span, about 72 years now. It use to be 65 years back in the 50-60ies.
Do they care for future generations. My take on it is: No! I think this way because it has been my observations that most companies change their managers approximatly ever three years. People on their boards may remain the same, but not their head managers. The boards are always looking for managers who can get the job done as cheaply and as effienciently as possible; not what mess will there be to clean up 30 years from now. Also note that managers do not inherit the companies, children of owners do. Thus there is no incenitive for managers to operate in the best interest of future generations. In turn, there is little incenitive for owners to operate in the best interest of future generations as most bussinesses go under or are bought out within the 72 year span. Those that do survive end up being owned by a group of people and therefore, except for their shares in the company, they cannot leave the company to an heir.
Post a Comment
<< Home