quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
You got my point, but you still have this mentality that it is a companies job to make money regardless of consumer welfare, I don't get it. These people are being taken advantage of, it is that simple. I cannot accept that people will do something that harms them "Just because." They are doing it because they have been shown that it is okay to do it. companies say says "It is okay to be fat" so more people are obese, it says "Smoking is cool" and people smoke. They push this "Be who you are" bullshit and people continue their bad habits simply because they want to "Be who they are" not acknowledging the fact that they could be better.

Hmm, well I would have to disagree. I've said something similar to this before, but I'll say it again in a different way...if you were a stockholder/investor in a company, would you want that company to work for the public good, or would you want them to maximize your dividends? Personally (and I think I speak for most investors), I would want the company to maximize my dividends. If I wanted to use my money for the public good, I wouldn't buy stocks, I would give it to charity. That being said, if companies started to work for the public good instead of to maximize profits, the result would be a decrease of investors. This lack of investment would mean companies would no longer have the resources to increase the public good, even if they wanted to. The only two options the company would then have would be to return to profit maximizing, or to go bankrupt.

And wrt your first point about advertising, I guess we just disagree again...the profits of tobacco companies have remained steady for the last 40 years despite the mid-60's semi-ban on TV advertising. If advertising for cars stopped, people would not turn 16 and just forget that they could get a car. If McDonalds couldn't advertise, people would not forget about fast food.

quote:

The only two options the company would then have would be to return to profit maximizing, or to go bankrupt.

Yes, but you are assuming that we cannot change habits of purchasing. If more fast-food places enabled their customers to eat healthier, purchase fruit, and other healthy things, who is to say they would be unable to make a profit? Although this is not just an industry problem but a social one, that doesn't mean that by changing the industry you cannot change the society.

quote:

if you were a stockholder/investor in a company, would you want that company to work for the public good, or would you want them to maximize your dividends? Personally (and I think I speak for most investors), I would want the company to maximize my dividends.

I repeat, you are under an assumption that cannot be proven by logic or numbers. This is like saying that Americans would not want to get rid of pollution. Socrates said that when you harm others, you harm yourself in the process, and it seems to be a common idea in America as well. Most do not care solely for themselves but for the improvement of society. Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line went belly-up because she was harming children by using sweatshops to make cheap clothing.

I think this has gone on enough, we really can't agree one it, and we seem to be rolling over the same things now anyway. I conceed for the sake of this thread and because the only two people in it are you and me.

Hey now, Mike, I'm in this thread, too. I just have one quick point to make about advertising increasing the number of new smokers. I know that the only real big market left for the cigarette companies is foreign nations, and especially women and younger people. There have been some countries that have wanted to restrict cigarette advertising, but they haven't been allowed to because the US government threatens them with severe trade sanctions. Why would the cigarette companies want to advertise in these countries if they couldn't create new smokers?

When a company invests and tries to make money in a foreign country, that means they sell products in that country, as well as making factories, employing people, etc. It's not like when Malboro chooses to "open a market" in Mangolia they simply start advertising there.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
...if you were a stockholder/investor in a company, would you want that company to work for the public good, or would you want them to maximize your dividends? Personally (and I think I speak for most investors), I would want the company to maximize my dividends. If I wanted to use my money for the public good, I wouldn't buy stocks, I would give it to charity. That being said, if companies started to work for the public good instead of to maximize profits, the result would be a decrease of investors.

All of my stock investments, personally, are in companies that are screened by Social Responsible Investing (SRI) and they have performed very well to date. I see no contradiction between the two, and I'm not sure why it seems so problematic to you, pax. SRI companies don't GIVE AWAY money. They exist to make profits. They just consider the impact that some decisions will have on society. They feed money back into the community, but not recklessly. All of my mutual funds from my investments in SRI have done far better than average. If a corporation isn't doing anything illegal, but seems to be acting against the "public good", I would worry that the backlash would harm the performance in the long run. I'd be more worried about the amount of money of mine a big conglomerate is dumping into salaries and golden parachutes for execs than how much money Ben and Jerry's puts into the local community.

quote:

how much money Ben and Jerry's puts into the local community.

Ben and Jerry's is an excellent company. After reading their book I have developed a strong sense of brand loyalty towards them (Besides the fact that the ice cream is delicious). They are a perfect example of what a good company will do, not only will they make tons of cash, but they will benefit the community, the country, and devote some towards causes such as the rainforest.

I never said just because a company serves the public good it is not worth investing in. I just don't think serving the public good should be a firm's priority. If the company can make good profit and help people out along the way, more power to them.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I never said just because a company serves the public good it is not worth investing in. I just don't think serving the public good should be a firm's priority. If the company can make good profit and help people out along the way, more power to them.

Nor had I (or Mike or RL) ever said that corporations should make the public good top priority. Your claim, that if companies "started to work for the public good instead of the investors" you would see a decrease of investors certainly implies that ANY public good would lead to the result of decrease. But the wording was vague, so I'll take your word for what you meant.

I don't post in the film forums much because..I don't see very many movies. And I haven't seen Super Size Me. But one comment on the current conversation.

Most corporations that produce unhealthy products don't provide all the facts about how unhealthy their product is. The cigarette company sat on the cancer thing as long as they could before they were basically forced to admit it. If you started smoking when you were 13 because it was cool, and got addicted, do you really have to blame yourself for being addicted when you're 30? Or if you got addicted before they told you it was unhealthy and addictive?

McDonalds shouldn't be shut down, and they should be able to produce as much unhealthy crap as they want. But they should also be forced to provide completely accurate information about how unhealthy their products are. The libertarian perspective is only valid if people are making informed decisions. Way too often -- they are misinformed, deliberately by the company.

Even more so for the cigarette company. They should have to provide completely accurate ingredient information on their website or something, with a full, accurate explanation of the purpose of every ingredient.

If somebody gave you an apple, you ate it, and then they said 'By the way, that apple was laced with arsenic', would it be your fault that you're dying because you ate the apple voluntarily?

Bob your argument might have had merit 40 years ago, but do you really think there are still people (Americans at least) who don't know fast food and cigarettes are unhealthy? I think a lot of people who eat fast food all the time either don't care about the nutritional value, or just find ways to rationalize their bad behavior. Anyone who eats nothing but Big Macs and fries deserves what they get.

Pax, my argument acknowledgedly doesn't work for adults anymore, but what about teenagers? Most teenagers (I stress 'most' so people don't get into a 'different ages for different people' debate) aren't emotionally mature enough to fully consider the risks to make an educated decision about smoking.

If the cigarette companies target 13 year olds, and 13 year olds get addicted, then they sure do have a case to sue the cigarette company when they get older.

As for fast foods..there are people who don't know *how* unhealthy they are, which is why I say full nutrition information, including number of calories, cholestrol, (lack of) vitamin content, etc. Not to mention some people are just uninformed about nutrition. It really depends, case by case, if a person was fully informed and educated about what the food would do to them.

First off, I am 13. I disagree with the fact that you propose the majority of 13 year olds/teenagers arent informed. If you were currently in middle school or high school for that matter, schools take many steps in order to ensure your knowledge. I have had classes dedicated solely to teaching us about drugs and unhealthy choices and their affects. All public at least, I believe, are requried to teach the affects of drugs and negative food. I would at least say the vast majority have a clear idea of what the outcome would be if they smoked a cigarette ect.

How they respond to this information and the affects it actually makes on what choices they make is totally different.

I agree with you though that the information/calories and ingredients need to be better represented at the acutal distributers. Last time I went to Mcdonalds, I asked for ingredients on the French Fries. Myself, not eating red meat I wanted to confirm there was no beef juice anymore. They had no ingredients or nutritional information at all. Later, I found it online and found out that Beef Juice still is in the fries, even after the whole entire case against it.

I personally found the film very well done and have not gone to McDonalds since.

I know 13 year olds are informed, just most of them haven't gained the emotional maturity to make that kind of decision.

If having sex with a 13 year old is statutory rape, why isn't marketting cigarettes to a 13 year old statutory murder?

As I've said before, 13 year olds should be expected to make informed decisions about what they're putting into their body, and if for some reason they are not, their parents should be making those decisions for them. I suppose there are situations where kids are both too immature to know cigarettes are bad, AND they have no parental support, but I think those kids probably have more pressing issues than lung cancer.

I can understand not wanting to eat meat on principle, but do you really have to look at nutritional information to know that McDonalds french fries are unhealthy? Anyone with common sense should know McDonalds food has limited nutritional value, and if you don't have enough common sense to know that, once again...you have bigger problems than fast food.

I'm pretty sure marketing cigarettes to 13 year olds is very much illegal Bob...of course it is still done nonetheless since proving those cases are usually pretty hard.

In that case Pax, how low do you go? If a mother puts a cigarette in the mouth of her 4 year old child, is that child responsible for being addicted?

13 year olds are more likely to make decisions based on what has social value, and the thinking is often short-sighted or doesn't consider all points rationally. Or, they use heuristics like 'Oh, it happens to other people, it won't happen to me'. Where, between 4 and 13, do you draw the line? At what (Exact) age does a child become 100% totally accountable for his/her decisions? Middle and high school kids are still impressionable by their peers and their parents (In varying amounts).

And you're right. People do know, vaguely, that fast food is unhealthy. To make informed decisions you need the specifics and specific knowledge about what fast food will do to you, relative to healthy foods.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
And you're right. People do know, vaguely, that fast food is unhealthy. To make informed decisions you need the specifics and specific knowledge about what fast food will do to you, relative to healthy foods.

Really? I don't need to know how many calories or sodium percentages are in McDonalds French fries in order to know that they're unhealthy.

If a 4 year old is given cigarettes by his/her parent, and the child is addicted for life, why is that the cigarette company's fault? It sounds like the parent is just being irresponsible, I don't see how that situation applies.

I think this discussion about corporate responsibility represents the growing sentiment in America that every problem is someone else's fault, whether it be society's fault, a parent's fault, or a co-worker's fault. Look at the growth of ADD diagnoses. Some kids just learn and think and concentrate better than other kids, why does it have to be labeled a disease? a) to subsidize the pharm. industry, and b) to make parents feel better about their under-achieving kids. As Tony Soprano said, "What happened to Gary Cooper?" Where is "the strong silent type"? When nobody helped Gary Cooper fight the bandits in High Noon, what did he do? Did he bitch about it? Did he moan? No, he just did what had to be done. Anyway, none of this has to do with Super Size Me, but blaming corporations for obesity does certainly correlate with this blameless culture we have forged for ourselves.

You're right Pax, there are excuses not to take personal responsibility.

But there are also corporations who are *deliberately lying* to sell their products. Or deliberately being vague. And if you used one of these dangerous products because they deliberately lied, then it really isn't your fault. The corporations should at least be accountable for making all the information available, somewhere. To sell their products for what they really are and what they really do to you.

As for the cigarette thing...you didn't answer my question. How young do you have to be before it's not your responsibility? In my one single example, it would be the parents' fault, not the corporation's fault. But that just goes to show that when you're 4, you can't be held responsible for your decisions.

Where's the cutoff?

If corporations were held responsible to honestly list the nutrition information, ingredients, etc, then they'd have to compete to make their products more healthy. But they aren't -- they aren't accountable at all. If they don't need to be responsible, they at least need to be accountable for full, un-biased disclosure.

Bob, there is lots of competition to make healthy products. How do you account for the success of Atkins and Subway? Capitalist systems should ideally allow for the most choices possible. If people want healthy fast food, go to Subway. If they want junk, go to Whataburger.

About your second paragraph...would it be alright then if Cigarette companies marketed to whomever they wanted as long as they posted on some obscure section of their website that smoking is unhealthy? I agree that corporations lying or withholding information from consumers should be illegal, but I don't think fast food or cigarettes apply. People should know these things are unhealthy.

Everyone has a different age at which their parents should no longer be held accountable for their decisions. Parents should be the ones making these decisions on a case-to-case basis. However, neither way (whether it is the parent's responsibility or the child's responsibility) should the corporation making the product be blamed.

I'm not going to respond, so there's no need to respond to me. I've been following this discussion from the beginning, and there seems to be parallels drawn between fast food and cigarettes. I don't recall Super Size Me discussing cigarettes, but maybe I forgot it. I still think it's on-topic enough.

My main point is that one side seems to believe that if someone is poisoning people for profit (although that's irrelevant), then they should be held accountable and/or be shut down (perhaps made illegal.) The other side believes that if something is legal and generates lots of income for both the manufacturers and the various governments who tax the hell out of it, then it's good for the American ideal of free enterprise (at least up to a certain point vis-a-vis taxes.)

Now, just to throw a monkey wrench into this hamburger topic, what happens if we legalize certain drugs, say, marijuana. There was a time in the country when there were plenty of laws against booze, but none against reefer. Is what's legal more important than what's right? Is money more important than the destruction of people's lives? The powers-that-be decide what's legal and what isn't. Who is buying these paragons of virtue and at what cost to our future generations?

Sorry to interject, but doesn't it affect any of the previous discussion? Shutting down now.