J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 08-06-2018

Good corporate citizenship is a theme of the Davos celebrations. Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably contributes, matter most. From an ethical point of view, the problem with conscientious CSR is obvious: it is philanthropy at other people’s expense. Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for profits. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board’s agenda. 

Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is unethical. In a new book, co-written with Karen Southwick, Mr Benioff argues that corporate philanthropy, done right, transforms the culture of the firm concerned*. Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake such activities. In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Lack of compulsion is exactly what is wrong with current approaches to CSR, say many of the NGOs that first put firms on the spot for their supposedly unethical practices. 

CSR was conjured up in the first place because government action was deemed inadequate: orthodox politics was a sham, so pressure had to be put directly on firms by organised protest. Ten years on, instead of declaring victory, as well they might, disenchanted NGOs like Christian Aid are coming to regard CSR as the greater sham, and are calling on governments to resume their duties. 

Keywords: [“CSR”,”corporate”,”firm”]
Source: https://www.economist.com/business/2004/01/22/two-faced-capitalism

Early Retirement Extreme: — a combination of simple living, anticonsumerism, DIY ethics, self-reliance, and applied capitalism

Outgoing people have a psychological need to interact with other people most of the time. This can pose a big problem for extraverted early retirees as most people at the same age or even 10 or 20 years older will away at their jobs for over 10 hours a day for 5 or 6 days of the week, effectively most of their waking time. This leaves very little time or very few opportunities to soak up the required amount of interaction for those who no longer work for a living. At least you get to talk to other dog owners every time you run into one. I like hobbies, reading, learning, playing music, practicing instruments, spending hours on wikipedia, Hanging out with people other than DW for a couple of hours a day, 4 days a week is enough for me. 

Now, many working people spend their time on the job, watching TV and maybe one activity, which for introverts would be a hobby and for extraverts would be going out. I already mentioned getting a dog I would also encourage people to join committee work, fund-raising, and maybe non-profit volunteering. Building trails, teaching people how to sail, rescuing pets, politics, being the treasurer of the HOA, etc. Depending on your interests, this can be very rewarding if you can find the right kind people to work with/for. I used to live next to the municipal golf course and every Monday morning there were people playing golf. 

This would all happen when other people are working and in the function of these activities you would probably be interacting with some of them or the few other retirees you could find if you are flexible. In conclusion, I think even if you can not get along without other people to get your , it is still possible to find something rewarding to do if retiring extremely early, while everybody else stay at their jobs. 

Keywords: [“people”,”time”,”day”]
Source: http://earlyretirementextreme.com

Why ObamaCare is Not Socialism

The main problem with boiling down American healthcare reform under the PPACA to buzzwords is that terms like socialism only broadly define a philosophical economic/political theory. With that said, the trillions made off the healthcare system for private companies doesn’t exactly scream socialism the philosophy or socialism as presented by the media. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In truth, socialism and communism are distinctly different. Socialism on the other had is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. 

If we apply socialism to healthcare we get single payer, if we apply communism we would likely get state controlled fund and healthcare delivery system. Suffice to say, communism is sort of like a radical socialism, and is pretty much the opposite of capitalism. If America is about a balance of powers then neither total free-market or communism should be on the table, but democratic socialism could be. Right wing-ers in America like to bunch communism and socialism into the same group to attack different political views, but the truth is our brand of governing really just borrows ideas from all over the place to create something uniquely American. Socialism is a philosophy, a regulated free-market is a completely different idea. 

A regulated free market is different than socialism because the primary goal is a free market and government only regulates when deemed necessary. Socialism suggests that all things are regulated and controlled by the government and little to nothing is left to the free-market. 

Keywords: [“socialism”,”healthcare”,”regulate”]
Source: https://obamacarefacts.com/2015/03/30/why-obamacare-is-not-socialism

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 07-06-2018

Salesforce’s Integrated Philanthropy Model – Forbes 400 Summit | Forbes

Good corporate citizenship is a theme of the Davos celebrations. Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably contributes, matter most. From an ethical point of view, the problem with conscientious CSR is obvious: it is philanthropy at other people’s expense. Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for profits. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board’s agenda. 

Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is unethical. In a new book, co-written with Karen Southwick, Mr Benioff argues that corporate philanthropy, done right, transforms the culture of the firm concerned*. Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake such activities. In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Lack of compulsion is exactly what is wrong with current approaches to CSR, say many of the NGOs that first put firms on the spot for their supposedly unethical practices. 

CSR was conjured up in the first place because government action was deemed inadequate: orthodox politics was a sham, so pressure had to be put directly on firms by organised protest. Ten years on, instead of declaring victory, as well they might, disenchanted NGOs like Christian Aid are coming to regard CSR as the greater sham, and are calling on governments to resume their duties. 

Keywords: [“CSR”,”corporate”,”firm”]
Source: https://www.economist.com/business/2004/01/22/two-faced-capitalism

Some 200 guests were wined, dined and entertained among the Old Masters by the great pianist Alfred Brendel, long a friend of Sir Ronald’s. Sir Ronald is altogether more sophisticated and urbane. On both sides of the Atlantic, private-equity firms manage funds that buy big controlling stakes in firms, sometimes taking public firms private. The old differences between America and Europe have vanished as private-equity firms of every nationality fight for the same deals, and the same capital to invest, everywhere. Private-equity firms have mostly struggled with succession, says Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School. 

Teddy Forstmann’s failure to find a successor means that his firm, Forstmann Little, is unlikely to survive him. In the late 1990s, he and Apax’s other partners started to discuss how the baton could be handed on to the next generation of leaders in a timely, efficient way that let the departing partners take money out without seriously weakening the firm. They adopted a retirement age ranging from 55 to a mandatory ceiling of 60-against which Sir Ronald has now bumped. It remains to be seen if Apax can thrive without Sir Ronald, for all his efforts to leave it in great shape. A new strategy requiring generalists in Apax’s leveraged transactions group to specialise in a particular industry has not been greeted with universal enthusiasm within the firm. 

Sir Ronald is now expected to devote his energy to two causes long close to his heart. Sir Ronald believes that economic growth for the Palestinians is crucial if there is to be lasting peace with Israel. 

Keywords: [“Sir”,”Ronald”,”firm”]
Source: https://www.economist.com/business/2005/08/04/the-compassionate-capitalist

We just set our salaries by… voting?

The employees aren’t on the same team as each other – some got one number, some got another. When the question first came up for me, I didn’t know how to reliably compute that number, and it felt overly complex for that moment in time. On Monday, the salary of every employee at Figure 53 will be set by a popular vote. In other words, I asked our team to set their own salary. First, the salaries of our current team have all settled down to a single number, across the board. 

Everyone knows how much money we’re bringing in each day, and I do periodic status updates of how much we have in the bank, what our expenses are each month, etc. Bigger in talent, bigger in vision, bigger in capacity, bigger in skill, bigger in responsibility. Let’s see what happens if I ask people to choose their own salaries. I ran the numbers, I shared that process with the team, and concluded that, yes, this new number could fit. See, I voted the number I was thinking of choosing, if I had just done it on my own. 

Something between my understanding of the state of the company and their understanding of the state of the company placed their valuation just slightly higher than the number I chose. Not much higher, so if I’d just picked a number on my own and declared it by virtue of authority, I doubt anyone would have complained. 

Keywords: [“number”,”Big”,”salary”]
Source: https://figure53.com/notes/2013-08-30-we-just-set-our-salaries/

Does capitalism work?

It’s the form of capitalism practiced by every democracy in the world, including China (which is not a democracy. Compassionate Capitalism works under the stricture that those individuals who can prosper under the free-enterprise system can keep the fruits of their labor and amass wealth – up to a point. There has to be something left over for those who cannot be entrepreneurs. Pure Capitalism doesnt leave anything or leaves little for the non-capitalists. The trouble starts when capitalists believe that they do not owe the non-capitalists anything when they have amassed their wealth because of them. 

Keywords: [“capitalism”,”non-capitalists”,”anything”]
Source: https://www.quora.com/Does-capitalism-work

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 04-10-2018

The Pursuit of Equal Income Distribution

During the last decades, the great weaknesses of capitalism have flourished. Inequality of income distribution has worsened painfully, the gap between rich and poor widens more and more every day, and just a few lucky entrepreneurs in the world are able to enjoy the capital benefits of the global system. Hunger, poverty, demographic explosion, ageing, and unbridled mass migration, among other factors, have become critical social dilemmas directly related to capitalist deviations, all of which cause us to foresee a chaotic world scenario in the near future. The numbers shown in this article confirm that the world’s economic disparity, instead of diminishing, is increasing at an alarming rate. Since the world economy completely depends on capitalism, this system is still extremely powerful and influential in global decision-making, thus further aggravating economic disparity. As it is not possible to avoid the capitalist system, we will make proposals that are feasible for implementing within the current capitalist tendencies in order to alleviate global imbalance. Compassionate Capitalism is an alternative that promotes flexibilization of the system in order to make it more sustainable. It seeks to diminish corporate control over the economy and markets by regaining the State’s economic intervention so that profits are fairly redistributed for the common welfare. The information used for the study is based on the most recent international reports and global circumstances of the topics in question. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add ‘julypress.com’ domain to your e-mail ‘safe list’. If you do not receive e-mail in your ‘inbox’, check your ‘bulk mail’ or ‘junk mail’ folders.

Keywords: [“system”,”global”,”world”]
Source: http://journal.julypress.com/index.php/ajsss/article/view/262

Two-faced capitalism

Good corporate citizenship is a theme of the Davos celebrations. Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably contributes, matter most. From an ethical point of view, the problem with conscientious CSR is obvious: it is philanthropy at other people’s expense. Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for profits. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board’s agenda. Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is unethical. In a new book, co-written with Karen Southwick, Mr Benioff argues that corporate philanthropy, done right, transforms the culture of the firm concerned*. Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake such activities. In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Lack of compulsion is exactly what is wrong with current approaches to CSR, say many of the NGOs that first put firms on the spot for their supposedly unethical practices. CSR was conjured up in the first place because government action was deemed inadequate: orthodox politics was a sham, so pressure had to be put directly on firms by organised protest. Ten years on, instead of declaring victory, as well they might, disenchanted NGOs like Christian Aid are coming to regard CSR as the greater sham, and are calling on governments to resume their duties.

Keywords: [“CSR”,”corporate”,”firm”]
Source: https://www.economist.com/node/2369912

compassionate capitalism

Over the years, Mr. Whittaker’s Christian ecumenical humanitarian organization, Opportunity International, has lived up to its growing reputation of giving the poor an alternative to charity. Today, this non-profit group creates entrepreneurial empowerment by providing loans and job training directly to poor people at the grassroots level. By 2007, the organization plans to finance 1 million poor entrepreneurs per year; and by 2010 its goal is to finance 2 million people per year into their own businesses. 98 percent of its clients pay their loans back on time and at market-rate interest! Notions that the poor are not creditworthy are shattered by this reality. Given access to credit and capital, capitalism can be democratized. People must be able to feed themselves and their families. For the majority of the world’s hungry people, food is available. Microfinance is the jumpstart so many people need to begin the process of meeting their most basic human needs; and then, accumulated capital can be saved and invested towards purchasing a home and property to begin the process of real wealth-building. When people are economically deprived, they can be politically and culturally deprived as well. We also know that poverty represents a breeding ground for terrorism, emanating from people’s feelings of desperation. The bottom line is that we must do more to narrow that gap between the rich and poor in our world. When we tap into one of the key economic forces that have made America great, namely, venture capital to energize the spirit of entrepreneurship, and harness it with compassion in the form of credit for the working poor – we have a formula for ending chronic poverty.

Keywords: [“people”,”poor”,”property”]
Source: https://steveparkhurst.wordpress.com/tag/compassionate-capitalism

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 04-01-2018

Compassionate Capitalist – Reality Check – Having a Plan

Two-faced capitalism

Good corporate citizenship is a theme of the Davos celebrations. Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably contributes, matter most. From an ethical point of view, the problem with conscientious CSR is obvious: it is philanthropy at other people’s expense. Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for profits. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board’s agenda. Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is unethical. In a new book, co-written with Karen Southwick, Mr Benioff argues that corporate philanthropy, done right, transforms the culture of the firm concerned*. Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake such activities. In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Lack of compulsion is exactly what is wrong with current approaches to CSR, say many of the NGOs that first put firms on the spot for their supposedly unethical practices. CSR was conjured up in the first place because government action was deemed inadequate: orthodox politics was a sham, so pressure had to be put directly on firms by organised protest. Ten years on, instead of declaring victory, as well they might, disenchanted NGOs like Christian Aid are coming to regard CSR as the greater sham, and are calling on governments to resume their duties.

Keywords: [“CSR”,”corporate”,”firm”]
Source: https://www.economist.com/node/2369912

Scotland’s Compassionate Capitalist Legacy

The global banking sector was enticed to set up shop in London with the promise of a non-interventionist government with ‘light touch regulation. ‘ Over the next 30 years’ successive Westminster Governments embraced laissez faire capitalism with gusto. What is perhaps less well known is that the capitalism set in motion by her government was a gross distortion of his beliefs. Michael Marin, Canadian law professor and Gates Cambridge Scholar in his paper Disembedding Corporate Governance: The Crisis of Shareholder Primacy in the UK and Canada sets out in detail the role that the corporate governance of laissez faire capitalism had in the global financial crash. At the heart of the problem is the fact that a company and its directors are legally required to put the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholders. The mission of a company becomes about maximising shareholder returns – often at any cost. In 2015, the World Economic Forum recognised that there no longer needed to be a trade-off between economic growth, competitiveness and social inclusion. A fact experienced by Bart Houlahan, a US businessman who helped grow the basketball apparel company, AND1, to become the number two brand in the US behind Nike. Within weeks of the sale, the company’s commitment to employees, the community and the environment had been stripped away. B Corps are companies that have met these standards and changed their constitution to rank all stakeholders equally. Recognised brands have come on board including the clothing company Patagonia; the on-line market place Etsy; the funding platform Kickstarter; and the ethical bank Triodos. Fast Company attributed ‘The B Corp movement [as] one of the ’20 Moments that Mattered’ over the last 20 years.

Keywords: [“company”,”Shareholder”,”Government”]
Source: http://www.businessforscotland.com/scotlands-compassionate-capitalist-legacy/

The Compassion of Capitalism

We benefit from the compassion of capitalism and we must help others achieve the same blessings. Sufferings or misfortunes of others – we feel a current state of uneasiness or hardship that we want to improve. How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation. We must be able to have sympathy for and identify sufferings of others in order to solve problems and serve others. Sympathy and concern for others form the bedrock of free market exchange. Entrepreneurs play a vital role in identifying the misfortunes of others, putting themselves in others’ shoes, to really experience what they are going through. In a free society, men like Henry Turkel can take their natural born sympathies towards others and aid them in their misfortune. Through his profession, he had many occasions to understand the needs of infants and others who are incapacitated such that they cannot feed themselves. If not for Dr. Turkel’s sympathy, understanding of suffering, and the incentives to do something about it, my Bailey Grace may not be where she is today. His innovation, which is encouraged when one lives within a capitalist system, breeds compassion even among the greedy and selfish. It does encourage ordinary people to unleash their God-given creativity to identify the sufferings of others and eliminate them.

Keywords: [“other”,”Turkel”,”suffering”]
Source: https://tifwe.org/the-compassion-of-capitalism/

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 02-01-2018

Definition of Capitalism by Merriam-Webster

Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that’s because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers. The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers used communism to refer to the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society, societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controls a society’s economy and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Communism is often contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic theory in which a society’s means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where prices, distribution of goods, and products are determined by a free market. It can be contrasted with the economic theories of communism, though the word communism is used of both political and economic theories. Democracy refers to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. Democracy is contrasted with communism primarily because the 20th-century communism of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by an authoritarian government, whereas the democracy of the 20th-century U.S. was characterized by a representative government.

Keywords: [“Communism”,”theory”,”democracy”]
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

South Africa: ‘Compassionate Capitalism’ Wanted

Johannesburg – THE caring face of the mining industry is to be showcased in a new annual SA-based conference, the first of which will take place over two days in Cape Town in September. The Global Mining Conference is to be organised by the South African Mining Development Association, which mainly represents the interests of junior miners, and it will be a way for the association both to boost its own profile and to lead a discussion on transformation in the global mining industry. “The conference will be different from the existing Mining Indaba, as it will not be about business as usual,” said Radebe. “It will be about seeking to transform global mining culture.”It will look at compassionate capitalism – and at recently introduced laws in SA that will encourage any investor to build a sustainable economy. She said the world had moved on from the times when mining companies would invest in new mines, dig out the minerals and then disappear, “leaving behind ghost towns. One theme of the conference would be the participation of local communities in sharing the spoils of mining ventures. The conference will also look at taxation, venture capital and issues related to access to funding, as well as topics such as education and skills, corporate governance, and health and safety. “It will be global in character, and the aim is to ensure that everyone there will take home something useful.”On the education challenge, we have expertise sitting in the mining industry that is not being used by academia. “Meanwhile, we also have unused mining rights that have become available under the mining charter, and want to showcase these to the junior mining industry. We will look at the potential for them to partner players, to turn unused assets into productive assets.” Radebe said the conference was expected to attract mining executives, bankers, analysts, as well as those involved in beneficiation and in procurement. The executive director of the World Bank, Paolo Gomez, is expected along with a number of leading players in the industry – as well as some of its critics from nongovernmental organisations and agencies such as the Industrial Development Corporation that are potential funders for mining projects. Radebe promised fewer speeches and more discussions, including the thorny topic of running mining operations in conflict zones.

Keywords: [“mines”,”conference”,”industry”]
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200506240130.html

Two-faced capitalism

Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably contributes, matter most. From an ethical point of view, the problem with conscientious CSR is obvious: it is philanthropy at other people’s expense. Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for profits. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board’s agenda. Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is unethical. Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake such activities. In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Lack of compulsion is exactly what is wrong with current approaches to CSR, say many of the NGOs that first put firms on the spot for their supposedly unethical practices. This week Christian Aid, with Davos in mind, published a report claiming to reveal the true face of CSR†. The charity is “Calling on politicians to take responsibility for the ethical operation of companies rather than surrendering it to those from business peddling fine words and lofty sentiments.” It regards CSR as a “Burgeoning industry…now seen as a vital tool in promoting and improving the public image of some of the world’s largest companies and corporations.” The report features case studies of Shell, British American Tobacco and Coca-Cola-all of them, it says, noted for paying lip-service to CSR while “Making things worse for the communities in which they work.” Shell, says the report, claims to be a good neighbour, but leaves oil spills unattended to. “Instead of talking about more voluntary CSR in Davos, government…should be discussing how new laws can raise standards of corporate behaviour.” Ten years on, instead of declaring victory, as well they might, disenchanted NGOs like Christian Aid are coming to regard CSR as the greater sham, and are calling on governments to resume their duties.

Keywords: [“CSR”,”corporate”,”firm”]
Source: http://www.economist.com/node/2369912