Comments on: Capitalism Has A Serious Branding Problem…

By: flurrie

flurrie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:07:01 +0000

I might be unpopular for saying this, but aren’t all companies subjected to a form of mandatory, indirect altruism in the form of taxation?

The more a company profits, the more money it hands over to the government. This money is then used to progress of the country as a whole.

So one can argue that even an entirely self-serving company still tends to benefit the masses. Perhaps the government should be tasked with making better use of the trillions of tax dollars it receives every year from such businesses.

By: Anna Muoio

Anna Muoio — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:56:44 +0000

Linda,

I’m not sure where the “smarminess” in trying to rethink capitalism may come from–although Clinton was the King of Smarmy in wondering “what the definition of is is.”

However, I am intrigued by what a “new economic paradigm” would like in your opinion–one that surpasses our cynical expectations.

By: linda

linda — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:46:45 +0000

I think President Clinton already tried something similar when he questioned the definition of “sex”. If we all have an established notion of what “sex” or “capitalism” means, why try to rewrite their definitions?

Retooling the meaning of capitalism smacks of self-indulgent underhanded smarminess. Let’s move forward and create something new – maybe we can surpass our cynical expectations for a new economic paradigm.

By: The Responsible Capitalist

The Responsible Capitalist — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:51:19 +0000

This is a great subject!
I am glad people in the design community have a focus in these issues, and this article was well written.

Capitalism in its practiced form today needs no re-branding in the form of the changing its principles or definitions.

Possibly, one could accept re-branding in the form of re-educating society of the foundations of Capitalism, yes. But once you open the flood gates to change in its definitions the foundations will slowly be eaten away until their is no discernible form left.

One could discuss the moral issues involved with what a company does with its profits, and make suggestions. However, once you initiate the idea that a company owes a part of what it makes to a societal good different from the benefit/betterment of the company; you are eating away at the fabric which keeps the company in existence.

A bankrupt company cannot contribute (positively) to any part of society. A profitable company can, and should, as long as it is not counter-productive to profit making.

It would be wiser to consider an option such as a “fair tax” method of using their revenues.
For example:
33% to the company
33% to the investment of new technology
33% to a social/community project

I am no economist, or business person, but I strongly agree we should not be playing around with the idea of “modifying” or “re-branding” any part of Capitalism.