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