because in order to indulge themselves they must indulge their customers…
Some people look at a glass and say it is half empty. Others look at it and say it is half full. I want to strongly encourage you to do the latter. Thoroughly flawed business persons do not represent a problem, they represent an opportunity. An opportunity for less flawed business people to out compete them, push them aside and reap the rewards. The free market takes care of itself–when it is allowed to. Interventionism short circuits the whole process.
They are?
When government intervention is unknown, that is, when they are not able to pick winners and losers and arbitrarily bestow privilege, the consumers are soverign. The capitalists/entrepreneurs, who are looking for the highest possible rate of return (“greedy”), must service the needs of the consumers. This is the point of free market systems: the pursuit of self-interest turns those who care little for others into productive/socially useful members of society (incentivized altruism, if you like). Those who are most capable at servicing the needs of society receive the highest remunerations, and can therefore demand the most productive capital/labor. The point of the price mechanism is to direct scarce resources into the most capable hands assuring maximum efficiency. The motives of the entrepreneurs are meaningless insofar as the system is free from government interference. Once the government is powerful enough to disturb this process, then the greedy CEO’s are indeed potentially dangerous (when they partner up with the politicians).
Another interesting thing to remember, and it has been touched upon, is the role of public relations. The consumers, even when they’re not acting as consumers, are able to turn the public against certain firms. This makes charity profitable, which is why so many “greedy” CEOs and firms devote so much money to charitable causes. Also, the profit motive, and therefore competition, is the sole cause of innovation and risk-taking–something laborers aren’t interested in.
Marxian agitation/propaganda turns people against each other and unleashes mans most evil faculties–jealousy being one of them. Some people are so jealous that they would willingly compromise their own economic welfare in order to destroy the wealth of others. They call this “social justice.”
I think I’ve found the next Henry Hazlitt.
[H]
CEOs do way to much for it to be possible to answer your question…
I was at an interesting lecture with the CEO of Volvo Corporation not so long ago. The lecture ended in a very open debate about his job and life.
Trying to recant what he said here wouldn’t do it justice but it gave a very good idea about the kind of life they have.
He started by saying that he doesn’t have a job in the regular sense.
It is a lifestyle and he is basically working 24/7 every day of the year.
The fact that everyone is trying to get his attention at the same time and this goes on around the clock can probably make him seem very cold professionally. Especially towards the people that have no business talking to him about whatever it is but should solve it themselves.
They hire a group of officials and executives to make decisions however.
I find it really depressing that left-wingers propose a CEO Salary cap. Mutualists especially who think CEO’s don’t do jack shit.
Mutualists support interventionism? I thought they were free market, but took it beyond the “rules of engagement” and into how the “playing pieces” arose in the first place, and made a few alterations to the rules.
In response to the OP, I understand your concerns and they seem like valid ones.
The problem is that intervening is tricky stuff. I don’t personally want to see hard working mothers lose their jobs or anything like that. But what’s the alternative? Step in and force companies to hire or keep certain employees? Is that really a viable solution? Maybe, I don’t know. Just seems risky to me.
How is not hiring someone unqualified screwing them over? It seems if you hire an unqualified person you are puting everyone elses job at risk. They have families too. They will have to work harder to carry the dead weight. It doesnt seem very compassionate to everyone else. How about customers who are harmed by incompetent employees. Especially in a nursing home. Forget to medicate one of the residents and they could suffer all night in pain.
I worked in residential construction during the boom times. My first boss ran his own company and had more work than he could handle. He was a really good guy and did all he could for those who worked for him. During the good times he was constantly pressed and manipulated by the hourly workers for more pay and he usually gave in because he felt that the company was a success because of them. As the housing market collapsed he did everything he could to survive except fire people. He is no longer in business. The second guy I worked for still a good guy but very tough to work for. Paid well if he felt you earned it and fired you if he felt you didnt earn your pay. When things got tough he cut everything including workers. He is still in business. The first guy employs no one and the second guy still employs twenty or so. So whose workers are better off? Take a step back and take a look at the big picture there are always effects not so obvious.
Also, declaring that all managers/owners are cold and concieted is simply not true. There are different management styles for diffrent types of business. It also depends on who is working for you. You dont manage a bunch of teenagers in a fast food joint the way you manage engineers at a design firm. Many managers keep a distance from their employees to prevent friendships and emotions from clouding thier judgement and puting at risk their and their other employees livelyhoods. Being a business owner is a huge responsibility and I have never known any business owner to take the well being of their good employees lightly.
The corporate world is different, but the corporate world is a very distorted free market.