Business Ethics In The Tractor Industry

[5030]

No green tractors on this farm so for me, it's moot.

 

[pacosperson]

Where did you hear energy companies have a technical responsibility to protect the environment?
They have one duty: Serve the shareholders.
They will only protect the environment if it serves the shareholder or if forced to by government regulations.
It is a disservice to the shareholders and uncompetitive to unnecessarily cut profits.

"Mission Statements" and corporate mottos and posters with grand sayings are fluff created by the bureaucrats in business in order to appear busy.
The business, regardless of size, has only one goal; To Make Money From Satisfied Customers.
Figuring out what satisfies the customers over time is the tough part.

 

[CobyRupert]

"Mission Statements" and corporate mottos and posters with grand sayings are fluff created by the bureaucrats in business in order to appear busy.
The business, regardless of size, has only one goal; To Make Money From Satisfied Customers.
Figuring out what satisfies the customers over time is the tough part.

Yes, to make money for the owners/shareholders.

 

[DutchInNZ]

The future of driving is here?

The Era of ‘the Car You Own Forever’ Is Coming to an End

It won’t make sense to form a bond with a car that’s not really yours and runs on software someone else controls.

www.thedrive.com

That has been preached since decades by Klaus Schwab, the president of the World Economic Forum; no one will have any personal belongings anymore, up to the clothes one wears. Literal quote of this Marx 2.0: "You will own nothing and be happy". For the Canadians amongst us: Trudeau is one of his most fervent supporters; that is the main reason why, as mikester said, banks there have a state monopoly in order to control the flow of who gets the money. That is effective; just ask the truckers. Regrettably here in New Zealand Jacinda Ardern is a fan too.

It is frightening to see who all of the financial and political world elite attends the WEF's yearly meetings in Davos. A look at that list and the question about any non-personal ethics becomes moot.

 

[tacticalturnip]

The future of driving is here?

The Era of ‘the Car You Own Forever’ Is Coming to an End

It won’t make sense to form a bond with a car that’s not really yours and runs on software someone else controls.

www.thedrive.com

This makes me just a tad sick in the stomach.

 

[PuffyC]

One out of every four new cars sold is a lease so lots of people have already freely adopted the subscription model. Beyond that, we cling to the idea of owning a personal transportation device because that's all we've ever known, but in the age of autonomous self-driving there will eventually be no reason to invest large amounts of your money into such things and we'll all be better off for it. My generation's great grandkids will be able to get everything from a cattle hauler to a sedan at their doorstep in minutes, no matter where they are, ready to load up them or their animals or their camper or whatever and take them all wherever they need to be taken on whatever schedule they choose. We'll never live to see it, but they'll eventually look back on having to spend a year's salary on a transportation appliance just to get a gallon of milk from the grocery store as incredibly weird, incredibly dangerous, and incredibly wasteful. Minus the autonomous part you can get a small taste of that today in places like NYC where 4 out of 5 households don't own cars or even have licenses. Of course there will be exceptions for a while, but it's very easy to see this type of non-ownership model expanding to cover everything we think of as impossible or absurd today, and it's closer than a lot of people think.

 

[DutchInNZ]

One out of every four new cars sold is a lease so lots of people have already freely adopted the subscription model. Beyond that, we cling to the idea of owning a personal transportation device because that's all we've ever known, but in the age of autonomous self-driving there will eventually be no reason to invest large amounts of your money into such things and we'll all be better off for it. My generation's great grandkids will be able to get everything from a cattle hauler to a sedan at their doorstep in minutes, no matter where they are, ready to load up them or their animals or their camper or whatever and take them all wherever they need to be taken on whatever schedule they choose. We'll never live to see it, but they'll eventually look back on having to spend a year's salary on a transportation appliance just to get a gallon of milk from the grocery store as incredibly weird, incredibly dangerous, and incredibly wasteful. Minus the autonomous part you can get a small taste of that today in places like NYC where 4 out of 5 households don't own cars or even have licenses. Of course there will be exceptions for a while, but it's very easy to see this type of non-ownership model expanding to cover everything we think of as impossible or absurd today, and it's closer than a lot of people think.

Regrettably that will not be the way you think. The WEF is getting more and more influence with the ones in power and it is they who decide what you, belonging to the faceless masses, have access to. Spend some time in reading in detail what the WEF wants; it is nothing else but the outspoken idea of a centrally planned world-economy, not different from that what existed in communist Eastern Europe, former China and Cambodia, only now much more intrusive. In those economies there is no incentive for individual improvement, so people are apathetic w.r.t. being productive. In those systems you just get what there is and that is not very much, neither in quantity nor in choice. The reason why the so-called socialist systems went belly-up is simply because of specifically this the countries went bankrupt.

In the WEF's heavenly system the freedom of choice of what the individual wants to do or to use or to get in loan or in what house to live is not his; he gets what is decided to be made available for him, and that in accordance to the social points he has gathered with his behaviour. In some parts of China this system is already practised right now; those who speak up too much e.g. can't even take the train anymore or choose where to live.

In the 70s-80s I have travelled a lot for business, also much in the East-European communist countries (all with state-owned companies, of course, there were no private ones allowed. The bartering more often than not went: I need 10 tons from you, but I don't have money to pay; would you in return accept 30 tons of pig iron, please?) and what I have seen there would make my biggest fear experiencing that kind of loss of freedom, if I would not be sure that I won't live that long any more.

 

[IndyJay]

Regrettably that will not be the way you think. The WEF is getting more and more influence with the ones in power and it is they who decide what you, belonging to the faceless masses, have access to. Spend some time in reading in detail what the WEF wants; it is nothing else but the outspoken idea of a centrally planned world-economy, not different from that what existed in communist Eastern Europe, former China and Cambodia, only now much more intrusive. In those economies there is no incentive for individual improvement, so people are apathetic w.r.t. being productive. In those systems you just get what there is and that is not very much, neither in quantity nor in choice. The reason why the so-called socialist systems went belly-up is simply because of specifically this the countries went bankrupt.

In the WEF's heavenly system the freedom of choice of what the individual wants to do or to use or to get in loan or in what house to live is not his; he gets what is decided to be made available for him, and that in accordance to the social points he has gathered with his behaviour. In some parts of China this system is already practised right now; those who speak up too much e.g. can't even take the train anymore or choose where to live.

In the 70s-80s I have travelled a lot for business, also much in the East-European communist countries (all with state-owned companies, of course, there were no private ones allowed. The bartering more often than not went: I need 10 tons from you, but I don't have money to pay; would you in return accept 30 tons of pig iron, please?) and what I have seen there would make my biggest fear experiencing that kind of loss of freedom, if I would not be sure that I won't live that long any more.

Throughout history there have been different variations of a caste system. Royalties with those born into it or well connected by marriage, versus the serfs. Even relatively modern day examples, think of the song, "I owe my soul to the company store". If Herr Schwab and his crew have their way then we will all be under the thumb of "the company store".

 

[TimberFarm]

Regrettably that will not be the way you think. The WEF is getting more and more influence with the ones in power and it is they who decide what you, belonging to the faceless masses, have access to. Spend some time in reading in detail what the WEF wants; it is nothing else but the outspoken idea of a centrally planned world-economy, not different from that what existed in communist Eastern Europe, former China and Cambodia, only now much more intrusive. In those economies there is no incentive for individual improvement, so people are apathetic w.r.t. being productive. In those systems you just get what there is and that is not very much, neither in quantity nor in choice. The reason why the so-called socialist systems went belly-up is simply because of specifically this the countries went bankrupt.

In the WEF's heavenly system the freedom of choice of what the individual wants to do or to use or to get in loan or in what house to live is not his; he gets what is decided to be made available for him, and that in accordance to the social points he has gathered with his behaviour. In some parts of China this system is already practised right now; those who speak up too much e.g. can't even take the train anymore or choose where to live.

In the 70s-80s I have travelled a lot for business, also much in the East-European communist countries (all with state-owned companies, of course, there were no private ones allowed. The bartering more often than not went: I need 10 tons from you, but I don't have money to pay; would you in return accept 30 tons of pig iron, please?) and what I have seen there would make my biggest fear experiencing that kind of loss of freedom, if I would not be sure that I won't live that long any more.

That's why the manufactures turned out laughable garbage in Eastern Europe, etc. The top tier owners received all the money and percs, and the workers got nothing. So, workers could care less if they bothered to put lug nuts on the wheels as the vehicles rolled of the line. They weren't going to ever get any more money if they did it right, or did it well.

 

[bvanek]

Nobody wants the energy companies to dump the waste they create from the byproduct of their drilling into the rain forests, creeks, rivers, lakes and oceans. That is totally irresponsible, destructive and even sinful. I am one of the most hawkish people you will ever meet when it comes to fossil fuels but I have no grace for energy companies that engage in environmental mismanagement. And I think if you ever spoke to people within that industry you would find the same sentiment.

I agree with your sentiments on these basic principals for environmental responsibility. As a country overall we have done a pretty good job at improving and holding energy companies responsible for the environment. I would say that most energy companies today are on board. But as stated above they also have a responsibility to make a profit as it's a requirement for staying in business. In can be said, that "the war on fossil fuels" has had immediate consequences and irresponsible polices make it more difficult to find working solutions that don't blow up people's livelihoods in the process.

the rub; who defines whats best for the environment? I think it's pretty easy to conclude that some people (and businesses) just want to virtue signal. Common sense and reason should be up front when it comes to protecting the environment. When bureaucracy and political agendas intervene on behalf of say an outside environmental lobbyist instead of local management then we have a problem with a more honest and open resolve. Smaller companies often are the ones who get swallowed up with environmental lunacy.

Back in my younger days we had gas wars because of a competitive market where smaller companies had lower overhead and could offer better pricing locally. This is pretty much the same for all other businesses as well and geared up in the 1970's when corporate buyouts, hostile takeovers, and lending restrictions, put a strangle hold on smaller companies/businesses. ....So once you eliminate competition, you lose the fundamentals of capitalism....and then power and control take over and compliance is "affordable" only to a selected few. I realize this is a generalization and there are exceptions/outliers, etc.. but my argument is not against "a responsibly of mankind to the environment," but merely an objection to having bureaucratic control over local issues that can be solved with approaches that might have companies and the environment on the same page.

Reason and common sense go a long way .....