tasty sweet tidbits about the business world

By Margaret -
When head of Nestle S.A. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe made a few interesting comments the other day it was a total shock. Go ahead and click the link. All his statements concerning the responsibility of the large corporation for community welfare are on the money, so to speak. Real gems! Not only am I sure that the purveyors of social guilt and wealth redistribution are shocked to see someone speaking candidly about business based community welfare but I was equally shocked to see someone in that milieu finally speak the truth: Businesses do not take away from the community. They ADD to it, baby, and any philanthropic efforts made by the business should be with the idea that these efforts will benefit the business in the long run. After all, it's the stockowners' money they are playing with. I wasn't at the speech he made at Boston College's Chief Executives' Club so I wonder if he mentioned that currently such philanthropic efforts are profitable mostly from a public relations point of view. If we were more honest about all of this nonsense, not only will businesses benefit more, but the community will benefit greatly too...instead of just the social guilt crowd.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more