Importance of Context

Corporations and Social Value

 

Social Value - Larger concept which includes social capital as well as the subjective aspects of the citizens' well-being, such as their ability to participate in making decisions that affect them.

 

Governments around the globe have multiple performance measures employed to monitor and manage society for peaceful, stable and progressive improvement. Corporations are entities used for the efficient employment of resources in addition to government efforts. At one time, natural resources were thought to be public property of the “state” and access sold to individuals or groups of individuals who would best utilize the resources for the benefit of the society by providing adequate return of investments. Risk of loss has always been part of the assessment and contributed to the creation and development of the insurance industry. Assessments include but are not limited to the best utilization of human capital (education & employment); purpose and uses of the identified natural resources; economic development of the society in which the enterprise would operate to convert the natural resource. Other areas for consideration include government regulatory and safety concerns. However, I will not focus on these in lieu of a larger point to be made.

Expanding economic activity can lead social development around bonded communities requiring greater inclusion for successful, diversified, and balanced growth. Much effort was provided by government actions through laws and customs (old and new) to counter corporate self-interested, monopolistic control. The mechanism used to counter these actions was the creation of increased competition. Early U.S. economic competition was more direct by definition after Theodore Roosevelt’s anti-trust legislative initiatives. Increased competition introduced more product differentiation, greater technical product utility, and created new services which extended industries.Wikipedia definition:

Competition in economics is a term that encompasses the notion of individuals and firms striving for a greater share of a market to sell or buy goods and services. Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms."^[1] Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly).

The increased competitive environment required more corporate efficiency due to the limitations on pricing power with lower market share and greater product alternatives. The efficiency focus can also be extended to human capital and requires corporate leadership to emphasize the resource values of the corporation. Natural resource material requirements are easily identified and pricing controlled within a specified range of competitive demand. However, the extension and growth of the corporation and industry is the result of investment in human capital and social collaboration (skills, education, leadership training, knowledge sharing, & shared responsibility) to create new ideas, products, uses, and other related opportunities. Such requirements make valuation of the (human capital) resource more difficult because usually it is the created environment that produces and develops the creativity. Your employees are the consumer market of other industries, if not your own. Cost cutting efforts among the human capital to achieve increasing profitability disrupt the environment by reducing longer-term future value in exchange for increased administrative productivity gains and short-term profitability. However, from a social perspective the lower profitability is acceptable compared to higher unemployment and lower levels of skill development. Capitalistic principles of obsolescence work when there is continuing investment and development of technologies creating new opportunities. So, what is expected from a “public” company? How does society balance between the emphasis of the two interests (public investment and private returns)?

The American system was designed to allow entrepreneurial access to capital that would expand an opportunity to effectively employ capital for increased productivity and profitability by matching private interest with public resources. Under these terms, are the investors in mutual funds and savings instruments receiving enough compensation for the successful business endeavors and economic expansion relative to money managers (salary and bonus) and entrepreneurs / primary shareholders (business controlling interest)? Granted the business owner created the business and also received in many cases 500 to 1,000 times the initial investment leveraging the use of public money. The original savers through pensions, mutual funds, and other bank deposit instruments receive returns anywhere from 5% to 500% (.05 to 5 times investment) which effectively transfers public money into private profits and bonuses. This scenario is even more pronounced within hedge fund activity where the greater returns are accumulated by the financial institutions over business owners and stakeholders. I do not disparage the capitalist system; let’s just accurately identify what is taking place. Where exactly is the risk of economic loss in the system relative to the individual returns? Should economic risk and computerized financial system risk be compensated similarly? Is the risk in the stock market pricing and valuation techniques or with the actual longer term company performance?

The American government has always taken a varied clandestine and active participant role in businesses and industries deemed vital to the nation’s security interest (i.e. petroleum and computing technologies/internet). The largest financial market in the world is not and should not be an exception. The refocus on investment, productive uses of funds, and proper identification of risk and related return is a good thing for the American society and the global leadership influence.

Women, Religious History, and Cultural Impacts

Social Spending and GDP

Updated 4/10/2010: Reading through some of the research, I can see where some in society could use it to promote religion as a fix for the current economic state, particularly the psychological. There is, however, some contradictory evidence for an honest discussion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perspective on a Tea Party!

I found this graphic in a paper “Religion and Preferences for Social Insurance” published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2006, 1:255-286, written by Kenneth Scheve and David Stasavage.

It was also reproduced in a presentation lecture by Roland Bénabou, 2007, Groupthink and Ideology. 

GDP and Social Policy

Reported importance of religion from a statistical sample of opinion from the populations!

Integrative Social and Economic Systems

Societal behavioral norms have been shaped over time through the civilization cycles. Early civilizations were not very sexually inhibitive as evidenced in the ancient artifacts currently displayed in museums around the world. In these early Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultures women were expected to be dedicated to their husbands. While male sexual promiscuity was acceptable behavior resulting from dominance based upon physical strength and fighting abilities.

The evolution of democratic societies as currently reflected in the U.S. has given women equal rights as men. Advanced technologies and machinery have replaced the required “brute” physical strength to accomplish tasks and placed a premium on mental and intellectual abilities. Equal recognition of ability and responsibility has progressed and eventually equal opportunity and compensation will follow. Marriage is no less important to American values than any other culture. However, the arrangement is becoming as much an economic decision as one of moral expectation. The marriage commitment comes with an expectation consistent with the politically expressed American Dream of a house with backyard and kids. The conservative social structure I briefly identify in blog posts Judgments and Character and Gatekeepers and Modes of Incorporation attempt to maintain historical segments within the society. Just for the sake of declaration, I do not belong nor do I intend to become part of the socially promoted segmented fraternal structure (particularly, any supported by Southern influenced frat collaborations with other “family” values separatists). If the objective is to create and maintain stability in society through committed marital unions, then placing restrictive boundaries and conditional exclusions are not warranted. The segmented social philosophy is a remnant of the early civil rights’ struggles and creates current day relationship obstacles.

Slides:  Married Couples in United States 2006, Updated                          2008 Per Capita Mean Income Analysis (Race and Gender)

Comparatively, the U.S. economic system is a more dynamic, evolved, and inclusive environment with substantial measurements of integrated success. Capitalist markets operate on the assumption of capital allocated to its best and most productive usage with limited restrictions. The system allows capital to flow freely around the world through all cultures and communities to find the best match of opportunities and goals successfully uniting supply with demand. So, in a segmented social group where one gender outnumbers another (more supply over demand), what should happen with the excess “supply”? Could these imposed barriers be the cause of unwanted behaviors? When women outnumber men within a segment more time is spent “rent seeking” a partner and as competition increases within the segment, male promiscuity most likely increases.

The philosophical capitalist (free market) social model allows more freedom to cross boundaries for better balancing of match opportunities for stronger, intimate commitments. Adding to the issue of segmentation are the subjective individual moral behavior judgments affecting opportunities. The impacts are somewhat reflected in national employment rates and other factors further compounding imbalances. Removing social barriers (stigmas) and allowing a free, open market for marriage selection (true natural selection) could increase the desired goal believed to create a more stable society of commitment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[update August 2014]