h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is probably only 1/4 baked if that, but what the hell...
A study, as unbiased as possible, should be done by highly regarded and respected economists to determine what economic patterns produce the most benefit to the average individual.
Then, companies would be "ranked" based on their
effects on the economy.
For example, if it is determined that Company 'A' has fewer layoffs, treats its employees better, etc. than Company 'B', Company 'A' would get more "points".
Once this study is done and companies of all types have been ranked, the results would be made available to the public who could then make decisions based on the effect on the economy.
For example, if 90% of the money that is made by Company A goes to the owners/shareholders pockets whereas Company B reinvests its money by hiring more workers, giving money to charity, etc. (the actual 'acts' would be much more complex). Company A may pay it's CEO $1B/yr whereas company B pays its CEO a more reasonable sum.
If successful in attracting business from consumers, it would then change the way that businesses need to think. They would have a strong incentive to behave in a way that is better for the average individual since it will ultimately also improve their competitiveness and bottom line.
This might have the added bonus of eliminating much of the corporate corruption that exists.
[link]
|
| |
There are already laws, regulations and voluntary standards in various jurisdictions requiring companies to report on things like executive pay, environmental performance, turnover, dividends. |
|
| |
However, consumers don't seem greatly interested in basing their purchasing decisions on this. (Do you care if the companies you do business with have ISO 14000 environmental awareness certification or check what their CEO/managing director earns?) |
|
| |
Determining what is better for the average individual appears scientific, but what should an individual do if the company's actions are bad on average for the overall population but good for the particular individual purchaser? (Example: they're cheap but use slave labour and poison rivers.) |
|
| |
What happens when it is revealed that the companies that score most highly overall also turn out to be the ones run by the most greedy, schemeing and corrupt mamagers ? |
|
| |
//highly regarded and respected economists //
Highly regarded and respected by who?
//the average individual//
Ain't no such animal.
The rest of it? I'm too polite to say. |
|
| |
A seemingly good idea, but kropotkin summed it up beautifully. |
|
| |
Sounds like this idea is better categorized by Public:Government. It is the sort of social policy that needs to be funded by public money just like the army, navy, airforce, police, courts and sewers. I like it though... + |
|
| |