Be sure to keep your face out of my fisty areas...

joking, joking. I just wanted to say "fisty areas".

Like slavery, then. Nobody was harmed by slavery, were they, and nobody profited either? And I don't just mean the reletively recent incidence of African slavery in the United States, or the current, thriving practice of sexual slavery in Thailand (and elsewhere) - I mean the pervasive historical tendency of human beings to enslave other human beings. Nobody is harmed by this ??? Nobody profits from this ???

I'll throw you a life-line, though: go off on a semantical tangent focused on the qualifier "long term" . . .

Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance.

None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave. Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want. The people working for Nike aren't beaten when they don't work, and aren't bought and sold.

As far as long term profit goes, let's discuss slavery in America since it was the most recent. In the short term it was profitable, but in the long run, they lost the lives of most of their men, had their cities burned down, and lost just about everything.

Let's look at American business. Ethics violations have cost Boeing BILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and work. How much do you think Enron or MCI stock is worth today? Why are they worthless? Because there is no long term profit in unethical business.

Compare this to truly ethical and socially responble businesses like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. who employ millions and bring high quality and affordable products to the masses, while at the same time making a decent amount of profit.

The term "fisty area" brings up a horror show of mental images. Thanks for that.

Maybe you think this is ethical and socially responsible? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13550

And this isn't slavery? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13514

I am an accountant and financial analyst so my business is your business's bottom line. I work with and for some of the largest real estate developers and investment holding companies in the US. I know damn well that it is possible to be financially successful without resorting to some of the practices certain corporations do.


Stormie

No, it shows your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't make that comparison. I was referring to literal slavery.
Yes, slavery is a business practice, common throughout history, where people are harmed and a profit is made.
It disproves your flawed theory that you cannot make a profit by harming people.
People were harmed, and a profit was made. In the long term, regardless of the outcome, those people were still harmed - you can't undo the harm.
Harming people is profitable. It always has been, and it always will be. That is an easily demonstrated reality.
Let's just go ahead and look at all of recorded history.

Do you honestly expect me to respond to lies and propaganda spread by socialists as though they had even the slightest bit of truth to them? Also, even if these things were true, the companies mentioned like Wal-Mart, Kohls, etc. are not doing them. Some local company in a third world country is.

Eventually they will be shut down, because the FACT is, there is no long term profit in doing business unethically.

It does seem much more "factual" in all-caps.

I have no problem reading all of recorded history, because it proves me to be correct. It proves that there is no long term profitibility in doing business unethically. It wasn't profitable for the South, it wasn't profitable for Enron, It wasn't profitable for MCI, and the list goes on and on.

They all went down in flames, because the public became aware of their dishonesty as always happens.

Also, I didn't say you can't make a profit by harming people. I said there is no LONG TERM profit in doing business unethically, which is a fact.

It doesn't matter how I type it, it's as factual as is your existence.

So it really all boils down to semantics. Nothing lasts forever, or "long term" as you say.

That should be a great comfort to the people who are harmed by unethical businesses.

Heh, so "long term" is measured in centuries?

Don't say that in a queer bar. :lol2:

The crux of the matter lies in the timely exposure of the alleged abuses. Many people will, given the knowlege and power to do so, avoid doing business with companies they find morally reprehensible. For example, I always prefer to buy from a company that operates completely within the US as opposed to ones that manufacture in Indonesia or China because its often impossible to uncover abusive labor practices in those places. You can't ignore plain middle class apathy though, I doubt that a big enough chunk of WalMart shoppers would boycott them due to unfair business. Many people just don't care anymore. Put everything together and unethical business can be easily whitewashed with a good enough PR campaign and media control.

How long of a period were Enron or MCI in business? How long of that period were they operating unethically?