> That's why corporations will never help against dictatorship. They may do it if it's convenient but in the end they will prioritize money over everything else and fall in line with dictatorships. Happened during the Nazi time, it's happening in China now.
Well, if you want your government to be powerful enough to enforce laws against corporations, then corporations will not be powerful enough to defy your government.
I don't necessarily blame corporations for this. My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom. A lot of people seem to be doing this. In the end they will fall in line with whoever is running the country. As long as there is money to be made.
I think as individuals we can never look to either corporations or governments to protect our freedoms in general. We're going to have to look for alignment of interests depending on specific concerns.
In this particular case there is clearly an alignment of interests between users and some corporations - VPN providers. At the same time there is a divergence of interests between the same users and another corporation - Apple.
Similarly, Chinese citizens surely expect their government to protect them from some actions of corporations. For instance, the Chinese government recently banned a lot of health related advertising, because apparently there was too much snake oil salesmanship going on.
The case that triggered this intervention was a complaint by the relatives of a diceased cancer sufferer who had received ineffective treatment following an advert on Baidu. However, the clinic that had advertised that treatment was a government run hospital.
I think this affair shows how complex the alignment of interests can be, even in dictatorships.
> My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom
It's mind-boggling that this even needs to be stated. Of course we should not. Anyone who does needs to step back and seriously re-examine how they look at the world, because this is an intensely false presupposition.
It's not that strange. The free market/market economy is used more or less as a synonym, albeit incorrectly imo, for freedom. Seemingly to try to make it true by repetition.
Look at any kind of right-wing politician whose random short bio contains "Loves freedom!" or similar. In practice it translates to "loves the market economy and property rights etc", while the same person seldom sympathize with ideas of a living wage, lowering working hours etc.
It's not the case. Show me the law that says that. You can't be there isn't one - it's perfectly possible for companies to take moral stands and many do.
Consider that both Google and Facebook have no presence in China.
Those are exceptions not the rule. I would bet that at least 99.9% of corporations in this country would open up shop in china if it were profitable to do so.
Or perhaps corporations could have a little backbone. Perhaps in their mission statements say that they will prefer to lose profits if it means not trading in a country that performs (x)
Edit: (sametmax) I can't seem to reply - I think the chains too long ? Either way:
Doesn't that mean we should actually be a little upset ? Look I'm no sjw freaking out over everything, nor do I run around scrwing boycot, but perhaps just a little frustration and some constructive argument may lead someone to a better idea of how to handle/fox/or seeup with something.
God's know I don't have an answer, but it does worry me.
Most people don't have the guts. Why would you expect corporation to have it ? This is the reality of the world, most people don't care about making the moral choice and will choose short term benefits. Getting sick over this is like crying because the sky's color displeases you.
Spend your energy trying to improve things at your level. This is all you can do.
Fair enough. But I don't think complaining about it is going to help. Pointing it out yes, but the tone need to be more neutral if you want the crowd from this site to take it seriously.
X would be anything we disagree with. I'm an Aussie, living in Japan, mostly working for us companies (plus the occasional Indian company), I see many forms of censorship, under many different names.
I won't stand up and say I know the solution, but I certainly see the problems.
That's extremely disingenuous. Any profit left on the table will be exploited by the next corporation in line. The loop has to be closed by the people when they get mature enough... and if that's what they want: there are few things more bigot than someone measuring with the west meter other countries' success.
You're confusing morality and legality, and it seems you're in good company around here. But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution.
Still, interestig to see a nice quip at a completely wrong scale/context captivate such a large audience.
> But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution.
You are aware that that is just your arbitrary declaration of what you think their role should be, right? I hereby declare that their role is to do just that. What now?
now china boots you out and you lose a huge market for nothing. oh, and the competitor now enjoying the higher margins will use that money to boost their brand globally, so now you've got less margin and more competition.
corporate acting above the law will quickly find themselves dissolved and ousted from the market. this is not about what people feels it's good or bad, it's about what's legal and what's not in a country.
When you consider selection, it winds up the same. Say in china if you follow the pollution laws, your competitors will undercut you and they won't suffer any consequences because rule of law is weak. So if you follow the rules, you go out of business, you don't exist anymore, leaving just polluting companies around.
Likewise, Apple can play China's game, or just cease to exist in china where someone else will merely take their place. The situation is exactly the same, grandma is getting mugged no matter what.
But...even worse than that though, the company has to compete with those Chinese players outside of china as well, and leaving Chinese market share out, that can make it harder....they could disappear entirely from the rest of the world as well (assuming Chinese players are competent outside of china, which admittedly hasn't been shown yet). So at the end of the day, of competition is working perfectly, those that refuse to play in a market can simply be selected out completely. Leaving only players who are willing to mug grandma...not because all the companies are evil, but because the non evil companies died off.
It isn't simple. In the long run, a political solution will be needed, we can't leave morality up to private companies that have to compete or die.
They get what...30-40% of their profits from China?
Here is how it would play out: Tim announces they are leaving China, Apple stock loses 90% of its value overnight, Tim is removed as CEO, new CEO comes in and says they are staying in China, Apple stock recovers 70% of its value.
So ya, even if Apple isn't selected out, Tim certainly would be. You are suggesting actions that a publicly traded company just cannot make. Don't try to outsource such morality to companies, they don't have the ability to act like that and exist at the same time.
So 32% one year ago, 20% today. China is much more sensitive to the iPhone release schedule than other markets, their drop in china has more to do with a meh on the iPhone 8 than anything else.
And Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world no? They can't spend the money they earn. They could lose 20% and still not be able to spend what they make.
In many places where companies are incorporated, that is likely an illegal decision to make for your company. Unless you can argue that the loss of sales in that jurisdiction will be less than the loss in sales abroad (from loss of consumer trust), you probably can't do it.
In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring.
In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.
Legality and morality are different things. Your shareholders may have the right to ask you to fire loads of people, or be a patent troll, but the choice is still yours.
But let's be fair, how many individuals, given the choice, would choose making a better world over money ? Probably not event most people in this thread. We are weak creatures.
On a serious note though, I don't disagree that indeed your statement above is true but because we are weak creatures, we must rely on systems. Making the world a better place is many a time correlated with some sort of validation by consumers in a market based system. I.e. solve problems/make life better or easier for someone, get rewarded by more and more patronage.
Granted, this is not always the case but majority of the time, this has been in my experience the most unbiased and reliable way to do good in the world. Simply by solving other people's problems for your and others' sustenance, you somehow also end up making the world a better place. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
My reference is to majority of the time and in a sustainable way. If doing good will last, there must also be a way to sustainably compensate the actors; they also need to have their needs taken care of.
Not really, look up fiduciary duty. When you trade publicly, you have a special form of contract to the shareholding trusts, and in turn to the shareholder.
If you breach this, you are liable for damages, and likely to be replaced by somebody who isn't going to make the same mistake.
This is a vital part of publicly traded companies.
Fiduciary duty, in the sense you are using it, is a myth (most likely created to justify shameful but profitable actions from corporations). A few sources:
California Corporations Code section 309(a):
A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.
Directors and officers of Apple Inc., incorporated in California, are bound to serve in a manner such that they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders.
If the directors and officers of Apple Inc. could determine that their shareholders have an interest in abstaining from the Chinese market for ideological reasons, they could (possibly) make a decision which would not serve the financial interest of the shareholders, but I find it unlikely that their shareholders would consent to that.
It's obvious to me that remaining in the Chinese market despite the CCP's suppression of liberties is in the interest of the shareholders. It is a huge market, and the other markets simply don't care enough about this issue to stop buying Apple devices and services on account of this concession to the CCP.
Not sure why this is downvoted. We're in a era when the biggest companies have the same means than small to medium countries, this remark is perfectly valid.
Well, if you want your government to be powerful enough to enforce laws against corporations, then corporations will not be powerful enough to defy your government.
You can't keep your cake and eat it too.