Here's another NPR triggered story: NPR today did a piece on conflict metals which are basically like conflict diamonds except that they are precious or industrial metals, not gems. NPR interviewed a bunch of folks who were demonstrating outside Intel in Portland, Oregon, against the use of conflict metals in computer chip manufacturing. Seems they want Congress to pass a law making companies accountable for their supply chains to make sure that no conflict metals are being used in that company's products.
I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?
Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?
Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
NPR
I haven't posted in a long time - Shame on me. I am really good of thinking of things to post when I'm driving too, probably because I have no way to note it down or post it. Anyway, this one I remembered.
Last Thursday (I think), Steve Innskeep or Carl Castle or someone on NPR was interviewing a Harvard MBA about an MBA code of ethics which the subject had developed. The NPR guy said something during the interview that roughly was, "the bank gives you a loan it shouldn't have, and you get foreclosed." That phrase struck me enough that I tuned out most of the rest of the interview.
I should note that the phrase was not the focus of the question at the time. Rather it was just tossed off like it was a common knowledge fact. For example, it was said in the same manner that someone might mention that if a car runs out of gas, it won't run.
What drivel! Does anyone else see a cause and effect problem there. The question implies that if the homeowner is subjected to a foreclosure, it is, inter alia, the BANK'S fault. It does not even allow for the idea that just possibly, in the ultra rare case, something other than the evil bank might be at fault when a foreclosure happens. I dunno, maybe the homeowner lost their job and couldn't make the payments. Maybe they are an addict and chose not to make the payments. Maybe the homeowner violated another term of the mortgage? Maybe the homeowner should have known better than to take out a loan like that? Maybe, the homeowner lied on the loan application. I'm sure though that someone thinks that last one is the bank's fault too; after all they should have anticipated that borrowers might lie and thus be responsible for protecting the borrower from his/her own stupidity and greed.
CAVEAT: This post should not be read to imply that I think banks are blameless - I happen to detest big banks. However, I am really tired of having John Q blame everyone, banks, government regulators, etc. EXCEPT the homeowners.
Last Thursday (I think), Steve Innskeep or Carl Castle or someone on NPR was interviewing a Harvard MBA about an MBA code of ethics which the subject had developed. The NPR guy said something during the interview that roughly was, "the bank gives you a loan it shouldn't have, and you get foreclosed." That phrase struck me enough that I tuned out most of the rest of the interview.
I should note that the phrase was not the focus of the question at the time. Rather it was just tossed off like it was a common knowledge fact. For example, it was said in the same manner that someone might mention that if a car runs out of gas, it won't run.
What drivel! Does anyone else see a cause and effect problem there. The question implies that if the homeowner is subjected to a foreclosure, it is, inter alia, the BANK'S fault. It does not even allow for the idea that just possibly, in the ultra rare case, something other than the evil bank might be at fault when a foreclosure happens. I dunno, maybe the homeowner lost their job and couldn't make the payments. Maybe they are an addict and chose not to make the payments. Maybe the homeowner violated another term of the mortgage? Maybe the homeowner should have known better than to take out a loan like that? Maybe, the homeowner lied on the loan application. I'm sure though that someone thinks that last one is the bank's fault too; after all they should have anticipated that borrowers might lie and thus be responsible for protecting the borrower from his/her own stupidity and greed.
CAVEAT: This post should not be read to imply that I think banks are blameless - I happen to detest big banks. However, I am really tired of having John Q blame everyone, banks, government regulators, etc. EXCEPT the homeowners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)