#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

The extent to which businesses should be responsible to the 99% is a good question though. It seems to have become taken for granted that big business should be run with responsibility to shareholders only and that if any business acts responsibly towards the communities they operate in that should be thought of as a bonus. That does seem twisted to me. It seems very reasonable that businesses should be thought of as having responsibility to the communities in which they operate and that this should be expected, just as we expect other legal persons in our communities to share some responsibility for the community.

When it becomes taken for granted that members of the community should only act for themselves, even if this may be knowingly screwing over other people in the community in order to benefit from them, then the community has a problem.

The only responsibility that big companies have to the 99% is to offer employment, and produce products.

They are responsible to their requirement to profit and to ensure that their shareholders get good return on their investment.

The community stuff that they do, or charitable donations are not requirements but bonuses to those programs.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The only responsibility that big companies have to the 99% is to offer employment, and produce products.

They are responsible to their requirement to profit and to ensure that their shareholders get good return on their investment.

The community stuff that they do, or charitable donations are not requirements but bonuses to those programs.

The point I was raising wasn't a question of what responsibilities big companies do legally have, but what responsibilities they should have.

My point is that it being taken for granted that a company's responsibilities to the community it operates in extend only as far as the law and shareholder interest dictate is in itself a sign of a problem.

A community where members' responsibilities only extend as far as taking care of their own interests is a community that a lot of people don't want to live in. A community where only those members who have the most influence and power are taken for granted as exempt from community responsibilities is even less desirable.

As I've said before, I don't think the problem is not so much a matter of some people making it big with high salaries as it is a problem of equity largely tied to social values.

I realize you've mostly been talking about the situation in Canada, and I'm thinking more of the situation in America, but the question of how responsible companies should be to the communities in which the operate applies anywhere. The answer depends upon values.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Typically, when I talk to other activists, we talk about the disparity of net worth, rather than yearly income. And I think that is where the gross inequality lies.

I don't know where the line is in Canada. However, I can state that the 62 Canadian billionaires in Canada own 1/6th of the country's net worth. We're talking the Weston's, Arthur Irving, David Thomson, Frank Sobey, Edward Rogers III, etc.. That puts a sixth of the country's wealth in the hands of .00002% of the people. I don't care how hard they work - and most of them hardly work at all - they inherited most of that money and have others do the hard work for them - there is no way that so much money should be concentrated in the hands of so few.

Well there is always two sides to coin. Those people you mentioned pay more for the healthcare, education, welfare ect then most of the activists may ever pay....

Those guys provide 10 of thousands of Canadians with good jobs and benefits. Maybe an activist would be better off working for one?

Heck David Thomson (father anyway) was one of the biggest collectors of canadian art - - all those art student activist should take notice. Let's not forget he did bring the Jets back....(son)

Do the rich need to pay more? I guess moreso in the states than canada. But having a protest because someone has more money than you, seems a bit childish.

The occupy movement in canada seems a little short sighted.

[CaptainCrunch]

As much as I don't totally like Ezra Levant, he totally skins this guy alive

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/o.../1258887490001

[burn_this_city]

That video is embarassing for the Green party.

[burn_this_city]

Do you want a job? Sigh... Ummm this is my job currently. LOL

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I realize you've mostly been talking about the situation in Canada, and I'm thinking more of the situation in America, but the question of how responsible companies should be to the communities in which the operate applies anywhere. The answer depends upon values.

Along those lines, I wonder how much major companies give to charity and community enhancement programs relative that of the so-called 99%?

[HOZ]

[HOZ]

TB breaks out in Atlanta occupy. A lesson for hippies and greenies.

[HOZ]

#occupy HARVARD

The 1% occupying......

But keeping the riff raff out! This is upper crust protesting!!!

Best conversation coming from the tents is................

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Along those lines, I wonder how much major companies give to charity and community enhancement programs relative that of the so-called 99%?

There's no doubt that many big businesses do give large amounts to those kinds of causes, but if their only responsibility is to the shareholders and they are doing so to benefit the business that only earns limited credit when it comes to how people think of them. They do have financial incentives to do so, incentives for which political entities are responsible, and anyone arguing that a company's responsibility is only to shareholders should be able to acknowledge that those actions must ultimately be self serving if that is the case. Donations such as those made by organizations which take clearly unethical actions in other places such as financial institutions organizing a basically dishonest and massive transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the upper class are obviously also not going to go too far in assuaging people's negative emotions. Rightly so in those cases.

When people start acting in business as though business is exempt from ethics in any non-legislated areas that is a problem. I think people are frustrated in feeling that's what's happened and frustrated in feeling that it's also lead to the failure of the political system they should have a voice in.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Wow!

Nobody in the Tea Party has taken drugs or committed a crime.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Wow!

Nobody in the Tea Party has taken drugs or committed a crime.

At the events...at the events. On site.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by HOZ

At the events...at the events. On site.

So breaking the law is ok depending on where you do it?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

So breaking the law is ok depending on where you do it?

No but

Gee...it is about the difference between the protests at the time of the protests.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No but

Gee...it is about the difference between the protests at the time of the protests.

Don't worry, I understand your point, I just think the guy who did the graphic did a poor job.

[Yasa]

"mindless chanting." Hahaha. The graphic is pointless, doubly so without examples.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Yasa

"mindless chanting." Hahaha. The graphic is pointless, doubly so without examples.

You never hear any mindless crap at a Tea Party rally.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

At the events...at the events. On site.

What, hillbilly heroin doesn't count?

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Who's going to pay to clean their mess up? I'm guessing the same tax payers that they are protesting for.