Corporate Altruism v Governmet Altruism

reply to post by milesp


I value your input but cannot do so if you just wish to not answer a simple question.

Is it because the two examples I gave you show that people that reside within a corporation can be compassionate?

I lost my original reply - I will get around to reconstructing it. That reply dealt with your initial questions and the behind the scenes look so to speak in regards to corporations, more specifically the narrow focus of PepsiCo I have engaged in.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is also revealing, in some ways, the choice of words the O.P. used in the title of this thread, as it has sought to compare the corporation of Pepsi to the larger organization of government, and by comparing and contrasting these organizations, offering an analysis of which better serves the greater good. But most revealing is the choice of the word altruismin the title.

You are correct that it is the goal to focus on and comparison of the two entities. We have on one side, a corporation that while a legal entity still has real people that reside within that make up the structure. Opposite of this is the Government, also a legal entity and also houses people that make up the framework.

*Note: Most of this will be in a vacuum of Free Market Principles*

A corporation cannot exist if it does not have a customer base large enough to support its operations. If the base is too small, the corporation is forced to adjust its size to fit the demand. If the base is too large, the corporation risks having too little supply to fit the demand and might lose some of that base to competitors. If a corporation has a larger profit, it seeks to reinvest that money back into the company. If it has a shortfall, it must reduce its size in hopes to survive.

Government has also a need for a base. Although its base is a tax base that comes from many different avenues. Government has no worry for supply and demand principles, only supply. If it does not have enough money, it seeks new avenues on where to tax. If it has too much money, it spends it. Rarely do we see a reinvestment to the tax base of budget surpluses in the realm of Government.

Altruism simply defined is: the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others, which is a problematic definition of the word since it is questionable that anyone is truly capable of acting "unselfishly" and even the word selfish as it has a tendency to be defined, only begs the question of what is a chief concern for ones own interest, and who is best equipped to make such a decision. There is a more considered definition of altruism that states: Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. This latter definition seems to come closer to what the O.P. is addressing yet still suffers from the contradiction of sacrificing self interest in favor of benefiting others.

I chose altruism to extenuate the idea. I know that in most cases it is an oxymoron. You are correct that I am applying the later of your definitions in terms of altruism.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


There is no such thing whatsoever as "Corporate Altruism" or "Government Altruism".

There is simple propaganda, marketing, and making their image better.

Corporation's do not give a damn about altruism other then selling more product.

Government's do not give a damn about altruism other then making their image sell.

People within both of those may have altruistic intentions.

But beware the road to Hell was paved with good intentions.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c9c27969530.jpg[/atsimg]

The above book is about one "corporation" and one "Government's" altruism.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b270a571015b.jpg[/atsimg]

The birth of the information databases and the slaughter of millions of people was their "altruistic" end.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/338cc3d8b0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

The end result of this "corporation", being I.B.M., and "Government" is a continued project with the R.F.I.D. system, and the eventual electronic passive tracking system of the bio-chip through Verichip and Digital Angel.

And Destron Fearing is yet another "corporation" with altruistic intentions.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


In regards to the first portion of your post...

I wholly welcome more information upon the subject. Digging deeper helps us better understand the intentions of corporations and government alike!

While we can look at the PAC affiliated with PepsiCo, you bring up valid inquiries upon them and the connection between marketing and the PAC.

Is this campaign purely for marketing purposes in attempts to widen their base? Or is it an underlying attempt to boost their PAC influence via customer base? I believe time will tell and it is up to us, the consume and citizen to keep an ever vigilant watch.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Here are questions that I have always found compelling about corporate giving in terms of political campaigns. Open Secrets.com reports that PepsiCo Inc. Gave a total of $63,575 to House of Representatives campaign coffers for 2010. Of that amount, $44,575 went to Democratic candidates, and $19,000 went to Republican Representatives. More interestingly, for the Senate, PepsiCo Inc. gave $23,500 for Democratic Senators, and $27,200 for Republican Senators. While there is close to a $20,000 disparity favoring the Democratic Representatives, in the Senate, it was the Republicans who fared better from political donations, but not by such a disparity, and the giving for Senators seems to be about equal.

How can giving a close to equal amount of political donations to both parties benefit Pepsi? Why would a $20,000 excess to Democratic Representatives benefit Pepsi? How does one discern the intent of Pepsi by such giving? Perhaps it takes a break down of Representatives and Senators by state. Or, perhaps a breakdown of top donations to bottom? For the Senate, Charles Schumer (D-NY) received $10,000 from PepsiCo Inc. this year so far. Why?

Well, here's an interesting tid-bit about Senator Schumer, that directly relates to both you and I since both of us have been castigated so much for defending the Supreme Court ruling regarding Citizen's United and have been accused of being in bed with corporations. Here is what Schumer had to say about the SCOTUS ruling:

“I think it’s an un-American decision...I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.”

Mmmmmm, PepsiCo Inc. has given more money to this Senator than any other in 2010, yet Schumer is outraged by the SCOTUS ruling. What the hell does that mean? Of course, Schumer is on the sub-committee on health care, as well as the sub-committee on taxation, so perhaps that's the connection. He is also on the sub-committee on anti-trusts, competition policy and consumer rights, and given that Pepsi's only real competitor is Coca-Cola, perhaps that is the connection. That there is a very real connection between Pepsi and Senator Charles Schumer of NY, should not be in doubt.

The next highest recipient of Pepsi's generosity when it comes to political finance is Rob Portman (R-OH), who is running for the open Senate seat vacated by George Voinovich. It is hard to discern exactly what Pepsi sees in Portman, or what interests it has in Ohio, although there is the very interesting anti-trust case of Schott Enterprise Inc. v. PepsiCo Inc. where Schott charged that PepsiCo in its dealings with Schott, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, (15 U.S.C. Sec 1) and engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade. Mmmmmmmm, that's now two connections to anti-trust.

The next highest contribution goes to Jerry Moran of Kansas, currently a Representative in the House, (R-KS), but running for the open seat of Senate in 2010. However, in 2007-2008 election cycle PepsiCo Inc gave $9000 to Moran and in the 2005-2006 elections cycle gave Moran $2000.

Roy Blunt, (R-MO) received $4000 from PepsiCo Inc. this year, and received $1000 during the election cycle of 2007-2008. What are does all of this mean? These are just the top four recipients of PepsiCo's generosity for political finance, all running for Senate seats. How would these Senator's benefit Pepsi? It is clear that it is not party affiliation that is driving Pepsi's giving, so just what is it? More investigation is clearly required.

www.opensecrets.org...

www.congress.org...

Back to you my ownbestenemy!