Addressing the Social Welfare vs. Self Interest in the Business World
by Neal R. Karski
Pause for a second, and think about the world today. The pace of money circulation standardized the time schedules of our lives and embedded each and every one of us as part of the system. This system we call the “business world”. The business week, allocated for work, and the weekend, allocated for leisure. Now, think of the direction and the schooling that you are pursuing, your current or future career, and the company you happen to be a part of. Then, stray softly to assign a location of each on the spectrum of social vs. self interest, or what is in known in terms of philosophy as the utilitarianism vs. ethical egoism range. Where do you stand? Where do the rest? Is this desirable?
This said, at this day and age we have seen an immense economic growth of companies on the global platform. Business has become an international phenomenon dependent on people’s decisions in how to allocate resources in the most efficient way and to obtain the greatest returns in forms of profit (money, wealth, capital, power). The world of commerce has become so competitive that it began to overlook many needs of those which are not part of this “race”. The continuous managerial agenda developed tasks and goals for years to come with little consideration for the issues faced by struggling nations or impoverished families surrounding these industrial giants. Efficiency, although, as taught by economics, speaks of the maximized welfare of all of those participating in the economy. Yet, as the greed of the business owners grows and bureaucratic interest reaches a sole focus of obtaining the most “opportunities,” such as wealth and power, the term of efficiency takes on a different meaning.
It is easy to criticize businesses or governments that do not align themselves with our viewpoints. But sometimes, it is somewhat refreshing and enlightening to stop your daily activities and take a look around at the domestic and international events to educate yourself and build upon your already existing base of knowledge and judgment.
Corporate greed has become a trend in the business world as large corporations and monopolies strove to eradicate small businesses and squash any competition or political action they faced. Many of us, despite the values we hold, may not have a choice but to be hired by such companies as we plan to pursue our further careers or employment opportunities in finance, advertising, marketing, writing, sports, public relations, etc. Often, we may also not realize or simply don’t care to foster any emotional or logical examinations of our own nature or the nature of the businesses. In reality, money is at the core of all commerce and it appears that philanthropy and altruism are just not powerful enough to change the ways in which we think and perceive the true necessities of our lives.
As I was having this discussion with a dear friend of mine last night, I was enlightened by a quote from Jimi Hendrix that she shared with me, and it stated:
“The world will never be at peace until the power of love overcomes the love of power.”
Corporate Greed – a Study in Tints and Shades
by George A. Miu
There is a timeless filter that humanity employs in analyzing and justifying or criticizing their collective actions. In the age of instantaneous communication and globalization, exponential growth and worldwide expansion is no longer an illusion of the megalomaniac, but rather an attainable target. How does this potential for unchecked growth affect the rest of us? Applying the filter depicted above, one can study the situation in one of two ways:
- A Study in Scarlet (Shade):
A transitory glance inside the lives of the inhabitants of the world illustrates the modern version of mercantilism. The sweat shop worker in China, the underpaid forestry expert in my native Romania, and the exhausted-yet-laboring 60-hour-a-week waiter at the local pizzeria, are all personal, observed, examples of a crooked scale in which the collective and under-appreciated efforts of many are used so as to channel money to few over-hyped executives. Untold masses of workers, ultimately, provide a handful of us with the opportunities to drive a Mercedes instead of a Honda, or floor our kitchens with Italian marble instead of linoleum.
On a universal level, it is clear that, in the twenty-first century, it is wrong to partake in heaping rich rewards upon few, in exchange for the disproportionate financial and social snubbing of many. This is a facet of corporate greed that reflects darkly unto us, and yet is not without its merits, noted below:
- A Study in Rosy (Tint):
The aforementioned fortunate few have the capacity for, and often are involved in, works of philanthropy. Universities such as the one I attend could not keep their doors open, in order to educate legions of people, if it were not for the charity of accomplished alumni. A world in which all resources were distributed perfectly amongst individuals would leave no place for successful social institutions, unless people opted to markedly sacrifice their quality of life in return for giving to an establishment. It is historically proven that previous attempts at allocating the collective wealth have brought all of the constituents of a society to the lower common denominators, and not the highest. Therefore, one can take the position that, without corporate greed and the drive to earn above and beyond what one could ever spend has catalyzed the rise of social institutions that are well taken care of. This is a brighter hypothesis, that paints humanity as far more altruistic than the Study in Scarlet.
This apparent contradiction is a topic of much debate, when it comes to discussions over how much our current corporate system can be changed. Are we willing to bolster the livelihoods of faceless and nameless people, perhaps at the expense of social organizations? Is that even a relevant question? Can one reconcile this apparent paradox? The floor is, as always, open for debate.
