Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
A lot of people are arguing in the theoretical realm where government acts altruistically and corporations act in favor in profit and everytime it's on the backs of the common good. Profit and common good are not always (or even in the majority intances) mutually exclusive. Ultimately politicians buy votes either with 'soft power' (non-monetary laws like crime and punishment) or with goods and services.
Politicians don't answer to the people as a whole, they answer to those who elected them during the lifetime in which they wish to be elected, (which in most first past the post electoral systems is 40% of the voting public (25% of the actual public) for a 4-8 year duration). So moving back to the Coca-Cola arguement about caring, a side effect of making a profit would be actually caring enough about your customers that they come back and continue to give you business long after said politician retires and/or fails to get re-elected. Now consider the fact that the Coca-Cola company boasts close to 40-45% of the population as customers pretty much anywhere in the world and has for generations. On the basis of satisfaction and safety who would you rather buy a soft drink from? Who has more of a vested interest in your satisfaction/safety in your drink? Who is able to provide it to you at a cost you're willing to pay repeatedly for?
Sorry 4X4, I must have not been around to defend your ground as you got tag-teamed by dippers.
|
Good lord.
The intentionally stupid question was posed in response to this specific comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
I'm saying that I strongly disagree wioth the idea that the government somehow cares more than a corporation.
|
It was meant to prove a fairly simple point: that the school board (government) cares more about citizens (school children) than a corporation (Coca-Cola) does.
Do you disagree with this?