J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 09-27-2018

Can capitalism be compassionate?

For an individual a concept like Kurtosis would have no meaning. Private ownership allows for exchange between individuals. An objection may be that we are dealing only with numbers, but if those numbers were actually pointing to individuals, and referred to each individuals’ height, then the Quicksort process could still not be compassionate, kind, or just. If I, as an individual, were to choose my own method to sort those individuals’ heights, then I could choose a method that is compassionate or that is not. There is no method, or rules of conduct, that the sickly individual could observe which would at the same time allow him or her to secure food without making it more scarce for others. 

We can consider how individuals seek other individuals to partner with and marry. Most would not object to allowing individuals to choose their own partner, but we would be likely to object if one partner forced another partner to be with them. They were simply pursuing their own individual interests. Many thousands of years ago, the individuals of the human species in their technological infancy could only look at those outside of their immediate family, or perhaps tribe, as competitors for the scarce resources nature chanced to provide. It is only when one human conceives that he or she, or his or her immediate family or tribe, could be better off by exchanging with another individual from an altogether different family or tribe, that compassion can begin to develop between humans outside of immediate families or tribes, because they no longer need to view each other as competitors for scare resources, they’ve developed a new abstract relationship- a relationship of exchange for mutual benefit. 

Individuals who engage in a great deal of trade with one another tend to have strong relationships, and to share similar interests. Those individuals who do not engage in trade with one another have no such mutual interests. 

Keywords: [“Individual”,”partner”,”process”]
Source: https://www.quora.com/Can-capitalism-be-compassionate

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

The Case For Compassionate Capitalism

The closer we looked at capitalism, the more we found it wanting. To save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. The damage done to the country during the Depression convinced him that unregulated capitalism always favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. So to save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. He knew instinctively that fairness – essential to any functioning democracy – was an alien concept to pure capitalism. 

Compassionate capitalism worked for everyone without busting the federal budget. Under Roosevelt’s compassionate capitalism – even with a Great Depression and a Second World War – the federal budget quickly came right back into balance. By the time Eisenhower was elected, compassionate capitalism was tightly woven into the fabric of American democracy. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it. The reason compassionate capitalism is still hugely popular – Tea Party extremists notwithstanding – is because it works. 

America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists, led by people like Grover Norquist, decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it – and then blame the resulting deficits on the lie that compassion itself is just too damn expensive. History has repeatedly demonstrated that compassionate capitalism leads to balanced budgets, a robust economy, and a piece of the opportunity pie for every citizen seated at America’s table. 

Keywords: [“capitalism”,”deficit”,”budget”]
Source: http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/03/21/nick-paleologos

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 04-17-2018

Compassionate Capitalist – When should an entrepreneur get a patent

American Capitalism Is More Compassionate Than European Socialism

In Investor’s Business Daily, I empirically show that the American model of greater economic freedom and a leaner public welfare state create more opportunity and more wealth than the European social market economy. Capitalism takes care of the less fortunate too, but relies on individual choice and human compassion instead of paternalism and forced wealth redistribution. U.S. workers are, on average, more satisfied with their jobs than their European counterparts. Only 25% of those surveyed in Europe reported the same. 

Europeans, enduring drastically higher long term unemployment and underemployment than Americans, are far more likely to have a difficult time finding work. During 2002-2011, 15% of unemployed Americans had been jobless for more than 12 months, compared to 44% in Europe, according to Eurostat. Europe has nearly three times the number of underemployed – defined as those working part-time because of the unavailability of full-time positions – than the U.S., according to the OECD. Not only is finding a job in Europe more difficult, but the work is only about half as likely to be truly satisfying. Despite having a smaller public welfare state, the U.S. 

spends roughly the same amount of resources as European countries in caring for the less fortunate. After accounting for the cost of voluntary private social spending and the benefits of charity in both the U.S. and Europe, I found that Americans are still wealthier than their European counterparts. U.S. post-tax household income less voluntary private social expenditure discounted for charitable giving is $28,182, according to my data calculations from the OECD, International Monetary Fund and others. 

That’s more than $3,000 greater than the population-weighted Nordic average of $25,071 and nearly $4,000 greater than the Western European figure of $24,422. Not only do Americans enjoy greater opportunity than Europeans, but also greater wealth. 

Keywords: [“European”,”U.S.”,”more”]
Source: https://cei.org/blog/american-capitalism-more-compassionate-european-socialism

Nick Paleologos: The Case for Compassionate Capitalism « The Recovering Politician

The closer we looked at capitalism, the more we found it wanting. The damage done to the country during the Depression convinced him that unregulated capitalism always favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. So to save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. He knew instinctively that fairness – essential to any functioning democracy – was an alien concept to pure capitalism. Compassionate capitalism worked for everyone without busting the federal budget. 

Under Roosevelt’s compassionate capitalism – even with a Great Depression and a Second World War – the federal budget quickly came right back into balance. By the time Eisenhower was elected, compassionate capitalism was tightly woven into the fabric of American democracy. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it. Deficit hawks didn’t know it at the time, but the answer to their prayers arrived with the presidency of Bill Clinton who inherited a quarter trillion dollar deficit and left his successor with a quarter trillion dollar surplus. The reason compassionate capitalism is still hugely popular – Tea Party extremists notwithstanding – is because it works. 

America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists, led by people like Grover Norquist, decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it – and then blame the resulting deficits on the lie that compassion itself is just too damn expensive. History has repeatedly demonstrated that compassionate capitalism leads to balanced budgets, a robust economy, and a piece of the opportunity pie for every citizen seated at America’s table. 

Keywords: [“deficit”,”capitalism”,”budget”]
Source: http://therecoveringpolitician.com/contributors/nickp/nick-paleologos-the-case-for-compassionate-capitalism

Capitalism With a Heart

They justify corporate philanthropy, like donating to the United Way, not because it’s virtuous but because it buys public good will and thus contributes to the company’s bottom line. To hard-core free-marketeers, the corporation’s only mission is to generate profits for shareholders. Mackey defines his company’s mission as improving the health and well-being of everyone on the planet. Before taking the company public, he told investors that he was going to devote 5 percent of the profits to philanthropy, so they can’t complain now that he’s robbing them. Nor can Google’s shareholders, because its founders also warned investors of their philanthropic plans. 

As Katie Hafner reported in The Times, they’ve given $1 billion in seed money to Google.org, and set up the philanthropy as a for-profit organization so it can work with venture capitalists, start companies and use any profits to finance further endeavors. It’s smart of Google’s founders to try using capitalist tools to save the planet; the market’s discipline should keep their philanthropy from backing too many lost causes. Still, whatever Google.org accomplishes, I’d bet that it will pale next to the social good accomplished by Google.com. The company’s founders may not have set out to help humanity with their search engine, but they have enriched countless lives by spreading ideas and connecting people. If you read Adam Smith’s famous passage about the invisible hand causing capitalists to unwittingly serve the public interest, you might conclude that Google’s founders are better off investing their time and money in improving their core business. 

I don’t think Smith would have any problem with Google.org. If compassionate capitalism is a more appealing brand, if Google and Whole Foods are using philanthropy to strengthen the invisible hand, even Smith would say they’re doing good. 

Keywords: [“company”,”founders”,”philanthropy”]
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16tierney.html

J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 03-20-2018

The Case For Compassionate Capitalism

To save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. The damage done to the country during the Depression convinced him that unregulated capitalism always favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. So to save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. Compassionate capitalism worked for everyone without busting the federal budget. Under Roosevelt’s compassionate capitalism – even with a Great Depression and a Second World War – the federal budget quickly came right back into balance. By the time Eisenhower was elected, compassionate capitalism was tightly woven into the fabric of American democracy. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it. The reason compassionate capitalism is still hugely popular – Tea Party extremists notwithstanding – is because it works. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists, led by people like Grover Norquist, decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it – and then blame the resulting deficits on the lie that compassion itself is just too damn expensive. History has repeatedly demonstrated that compassionate capitalism leads to balanced budgets, a robust economy, and a piece of the opportunity pie for every citizen seated at America’s table.

Keywords: [“capitalism”,”deficit”,”America”]
Source: http://cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/2013/03/21/nick-paleologos

Libertarian Propaganda With Your Organic Arugula? – Mother Jones

If you shop at Whole Foods, you’ve probably seen the ads at the cash register for Conscious Capitalism. To give Mackey his due, he proved that many shoppers are willing to pay a premium for foods that are healthy, sustainably produced, and sold by workers who earn decent wages and health benefits. Reading between the lines you gradually get the sense that Mackey not only fears bad government, but also the one we have right now. If CEOs just did a little bit better job of looking out for the interests of their workers, their suppliers, and the environment, then government regulators and tax collectors could basically pack up and go home. We’d be left with a sort of enlightened corporatocracy in which people like Mackey would lead the way. At times, Mackey reveals a pathetic lack of consciousness for someone writing a book about it. If the dream world that Mackey paints in Conscious Capitalism inspires a few more CEOs to allow bathroom breaks in their sweatshops or spare some old-growth hardwoods in Borneo, then he has accomplished something. Conscious Capitalism could have been an interesting read if Mackey had chosen to pull back the curtain. He could speak frankly about some of the trade-offs that he made in order to popularize organic foods. For better or worse, Mackey has been thrust into a position of leadership that transcends the particulars of selling sustainably caught cod and organic kombucha: Whole Foods beat out other natural foods chains to dominate the market, and with that dominance comes an increasing duty to represent his politically minded customers in causes that they care about.

Keywords: [“Mackey”,”Capitalism”,”write”]
Source: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2013/01/whole-foods-john-mackey…

Natural Capitalism – Mother Jones

Today, more people are chasing fewer natural resources. Industry still operates by the same rules, using more resources to make fewer people more productive. As businesses successfully created more goods and jobs, consumer demand soared, compounding the destruction of natural capital. If the competitive advantage goes to the low-cost provider, and resources are cheap, then business will naturally use more and more resources in order to maximize worker productivity. Our thinking is backward: We shouldn’t use more of what we have less of to use less of what we have more of. In the United States, those who are employed, and presumably becoming more productive, find they are working 100 to 200 hours more per year than 20 years ago. In some cases – wind power, for example – the technologies not only operate more efficiently and pollute less, they also are more labor-intensive. This is what it promises: an economy that uses progressively less material and energy each year and where the quality of consumer services continues to improve; an economy where environmental deterioration stops and gets reversed as we invest in increasing our natural capital; and, finally, a society where we have more useful and worthy work available than people to do it. Natural capitalism may not guarantee particular outcomes, but it will ensure that economic systems more closely mimic biological systems, which have successfully adapted to dynamic changes over millennia. Almost perfectly with what American voters say they want: better schools,a better environment, safer communities, more economic security, stronger.

Keywords: [“more”,”resource”,”system”]
Source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1997/03/natural-capitalism

Capitalism, Compassion, and The Prisoner’s Dilemma

From a strictly rational, individualistic perspective, the choice is clear. This choice results in a 50/50 chance between a 5 year sentence and complete freedom, depending on the choice of the other prisoner, while cooperation would result in, at best, a six month sentence, and a 10 year sentence at worst. No matter what the other player does, one player will always gain by defecting. All things being equal, all rational players should choose defect. Now, I’m no expert on game theory, but what struck me in class when we were going over this was the fact that, although the clear rational choice for each individual player is to defect, a situation in which both players make this choice is clearly not the optimal outcome if we look at the game as a whole. Being a non-zero-sum game, the sum of both players’ gains, less their losses, need not return to zero, nor be equal in every possible outcome. Any instance in which one player chooses defect will result in a total of ten years of prison time, split either five-five or ten-zero. If both players cooperate a total of only one year, six months for each player, must be served. According to traditional game theory, cooperation is only a viable choice if the game is repeated an infinite or random number of times, as only then will the possible threat of punishment outweigh the potential for success with defection. If rather than considering only one’s own well-being, we look at that of both prisoners, taking into account the total effect of one’s choice, cooperation would be the only acceptable option for the compassionate player.

Keywords: [“plays”,”choice”,”game”]
Source: https://rossheutmaker.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/capitalism…

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

‘Compassionate capitalism’ urged for India

Indian entrepreneur Narayan Murthy, founder of global software giant Infosys, says “Compassionate capitalism” is the only solution to poverty in the country. Debate is currently raging throughout India over the economic policy of the new government, following a lukewarm media response and stock market jitters. “We believe that if India has to solve its problem of poverty, we have to embrace capitalism, ensure that jobs are created, and make sure that market-driven policies are accepted,” he said. Mr Murthy is one of the world’s most admired business leaders, who gives much of his company’s wealth to charity. A growth rate of 7%-8% a year has been targeted by India’s Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram. Mr Murthy pays himself less than $50,000 a year, and said his company stresses ethical use of profits, 96% of which come from business outside of India. He recalled that when India had bordered the old Soviet Union it had been very difficult to establish his company in 1981. “I wanted to come back to India and conduct an experiment in creating wealth legally and ethically, and creating jobs, because I thought that was the best way of eliminating poverty. That’s how Infosys was born.” Mr Murthy said that when he set up the company, it took seven days of approval to travel outside India, and he waited a year to obtain a telephone for his office. Most importantly, they allowed foreign companies 100% equity in hi-tech companies in India. “That meant these great multinationals came to India – IBM, Digital, Texas Instruments, Microsoft,” he said. “Once they came to India, we learned a lot of good things from them – human resources policies, the importance of physical infrastructure, technology, a market-driven approach.”

Keywords: [“India”,”Murthy”,”company”]
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3757843.stm

The rule of law Conscious Capitalism = four primary principles plus Conscious Business What is a Conscious Business? Conscious Business is based on four primary principles i i l off enterprise: t i 1. The enterprise has a higher purpose beyond maximizing profits and shareholder value 2. The enterprise is managed to optimize value for all of the major interdependent stakeholders 3. If we look for win-winwin solutions we’ll find them instead. The human mind is infinitely creative. Conscious Capitalism creates new mental pathways to unleash human creativity. G, fuel cell & solar Green Building, installations Store Green Mission Teams Sustainable seafood Animal Welfare program for livestock Environmental strategy should be thought off as win-win-win-win i i i i Sustainable Seafood Worldwide we are using about 300 billion pounds of seafood per year North Atlantic Cod has been reduced by 98% in the past 40 years; white abalone is almost extinct; Bluefin tuna reduced by 75% to 90%; many other species are being fished beyond sustainability Problem of by-catch-15 billion pounds a year, 27% from shrimp fishing g Coral Reefs are being systematically destroyed Save the Whales! Still being hunted by Japan, Iceland and Norway. As Gandhi said: “We must be the change that we wish to see in the world.” We should consider the virtues of love and care in all of our l d leadership hi promotion ti decisions. We must “Give permission” for love and care to be expressed in the organization. G Many y organizations are afraid of love and care and force them to remain hidden. Practice forgiveness rather than judgment and condemnation. Too many organizations believe that judgment of others and criticizing failures are essential for creating excellence.

Keywords: [“Conscious”,”Business”,”seafood”]
Source: http://mendoza.nd.edu/assets/151593/j_mackey_march_2010.pdf

The Case For Compassionate Capitalism

The closer we looked at capitalism, the more we found it wanting. To save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. The damage done to the country during the Depression convinced him that unregulated capitalism always favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. So to save capitalism from itself, FDR introduced what turned out to be the crucial missing ingredient: compassion. Compassionate capitalism worked for everyone without busting the federal budget. Under Roosevelt’s compassionate capitalism – even with a Great Depression and a Second World War – the federal budget quickly came right back into balance. By the time Eisenhower was elected, compassionate capitalism was tightly woven into the fabric of American democracy. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it. The reason compassionate capitalism is still hugely popular – Tea Party extremists notwithstanding – is because it works. America’s social safety net was never viewed as the cause of eye-popping deficits until a radical group of political nihilists, led by people like Grover Norquist, decided that the best way to kill the compassion in capitalism was to stubbornly refuse to pay for it – and then blame the resulting deficits on the lie that compassion itself is just too damn expensive. History has repeatedly demonstrated that compassionate capitalism leads to balanced budgets, a robust economy, and a piece of the opportunity pie for every citizen seated at America’s table. If we take the compassion out of capitalism, what’s left? 1929.

Keywords: [“capitalism”,”deficit”,”budget”]
Source: http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/03/21/nick-paleologos