Political poll. Agree or disagree with this idea: People before profit. Yes or no? Why and how?

Update:

A slogan can be an idea, no?

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Agree... especially in regard to the following issues:

    Health care is one and Pooh makes a good point regarding profit-driven health care. Furthermore, placing the burden of health care costs on the employers makes it more difficult for US business to compete with businesses based in countries that don't have those same operating costs. In that sense, corporate interests before people ends up hurting both.

    My biggest 'people before profit' issue here is the US is that only individual (NOT corporate) rights are enumerated in the Constitution, yet the courts have been consistently extending those same constitutional rights to corporations thus establishing "corporate person hood". For example... in 1886, the Supreme Court granted a railroad corporation equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (civil rights). For the first forty years after that amendment passed, there were 307 lawsuits brought, nineteen by African American men, the rest by corporations. We (the people) have the First Amendment right of free speech, but so do corporations. However free speech equals money, so those with more money have more speech.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/24/20_years_aft...

    There is a movement towards drafting a "28th Amendment" (Tort Reform) that would strip corporations of their 'person hood', thus subjecting them to the same oversight that existed for the first 100 years of U.S. history. I really hope there is enough anger here in the US over our economy and the corporate bailouts to get the support for this much needed Tort Reform.

    http://i2.democracynow.org/blog/2009/3/25/amy_good...

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4245/our_town_...

  • jake f
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    The lawyers have made sure of it and they have also made sure the price on pretty much everything has gone up. Yes, I agree - let the free market take care of it, it will.

    just for good measures, if you are not concerned about how much money you are making, you probably have more then enough. Arent we all in it for the profit? are you just suggetsting there should be a limit on what is enough? How do you supose doctors will feel about lower pay, longer hours and government quotas, I dont think it will increase the standard of care.

    What has kept me in buisness has always been providing a high quality product at a fair price, some complain because they think I make to much, but, most appreciate a fair price for a superior product. I hope this is what you mean.

    What is your field of work? would you provide your services for less, even if the people buying your product could afford it, just to help put people first?

  • 1 decade ago

    Absolutely.

    When America first started exploring capitalism and realizing what great power in natural resources it had over other nations, a sort of anti-humanism began... But there was still a sense of responsibility and companies knew that their benefit to their workers and customers should outweigh their drawbacks.

    Gradually, the CEO's of *some* large mega-corporations started to idealize how much profit could be attained by simply abandoning the "out-dated" principles of benefitting the communities in which they operate. This resulted in the Wal-Marts of the world, which move into an area - suck out all the resources (natural, human, economic etc.) and leave the land high and dry.

    The United States of America currently has NO LAWS which imply any responsibility for a corporation to the communities in which it operates. As a result, a corporation can develop a mission statement that reads like a promise to chew you up and spit you out in the name of better returns for shareholders...

    This is not what our forefathers intended...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, I agree. And at the risk of sounding simplistic...

    Why? Because people and how we treat each other is really the only thing that matters. That is the substance of life.

    How? By staying strong and cognizant of our moral and/or our spiritual center. By embracing our better selves and by condemning those practices which would be detrimental to our fellow man. Defending the weak, speaking out against oppression, fighting injustice.....

    Not a very political answer, but my answer none the less.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, I agree with people before profit. You can live more easily without money than you can without other people.

  • 1 decade ago

    Clarify.

    That vague statement can be taken to two opposite extremes.

    I certainly agree that we should NOT be willing to hurt or kill people for profits. (chemical plants that poison the ground water of neighboring communities.)

    But I don't think I should have to give up my profits so that someone who doesn't want to work can get cable TV. (Socialism)

  • 1 decade ago

    Without profit there will be no people. So, yes to a certian extent. Why would someone really need to make $100 million a year? You can only buy so many houses and cars.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Curious, why do all your corespondents refer to your slogan as a statement and what made you think it was an idea!?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's easy to say people before profit.

    But the reality is that without profit, the entire system breaks down. Then you've got nothing.

    It may sound harsh, but profit before people ends up helping more people than it hurts.

  • 1 decade ago

    Agree and disagree. In my personal business, people are before profit. I don't trust government's idea of what is putting people before profit--it isn't their job in the US.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.