• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

"Hippocratic Oath" for MBAs

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
MaxBuck;1483400; said:
Interesting idea. The bottom line seems to be, "Create value while causing no harm."

http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_search=hippocratic&rf=bm[/COLOR]Online video and audio: programmes and multimedia | The Economist
Click to expand...


impossible. the two things are mutually exclusive. we live in a world of limited resources. money, food, resources etc. in order to increase your "value" you must take it from someone else. economics are about violence of intention if not action. for every dollar you gain you are forcibly taking it from someone else. every gain is someone elses loss. competition is by its very nature designed to do harm. the strong get stronger and the weak die.

its just business...
 
Upvote 0
martinss01;1486809; said:
in order to increase your "value" you must take it from someone else. economics are about violence of intention if not action. for every dollar you gain you are forcibly taking it from someone else. ...
Click to expand...
Wow. You have gone so far off the tracks in your understanding of economics, I scarcely know where to start a response.

I guess my first recommendation would be here: Smith: Wealth of Nations | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
Upvote 0
Guys, it seems like everyone is arguing the same point, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. Wealth is created in several ways. In the most basic, people mine ore, turn it into iron, using coal from the ground, and further refine into steel. OK, then they sell it. Part of what is used comes from the earth, and is non-replenishable. In other words, used once and gone forever. The other part is the 'value-added' of the craftsmen/foundrymen who make the steel. A lump of iron ore has a value, but a I-bar has a higher value. Both of those are economic idioms. And both are correct. Corporate raiding 'unlocks' the hidden value in corporations, as does dismantling them and selling the pieces (called anti-synergy or somesuch). Those are both economic actions (as is building a company that is vertically integrated, that captures the 'value-added' in one place rather in several independent places.

Creating something is what everyone strives for. That requires resources, such as raw materials, manpower, know-how, manufacturing facilities, etc. Service industries, (which is what the US is becoming) 'live' off the creations of others, and provide expertise or 'know-how' that is not readily available (doctors, lawyers, plumbers). Who is to say what is needed or whether there should be 'ethics' as a businessman.

Heck, one could argue that a lawyer shouldn't take a case if they believe the person is guilty, or get them off if they do. They are just 'required' to provide them with the best counsel that can. As someone pointed out, if the MBA's need to take a 'code of honor' then there are others that need to do also. The CEO's of companies do things in order to build the dividend at their companies, or have their stock grow, in order that you, the investor can earn a return on their money. Who out there isn't shopping around for a better return? Probably not many. Ask yourself how they earn that return. Raping the earth? Probably. Screwing their supplier to discount their goods. Yep. All of the above, but done in a nice, professional way.

Hey, I had some time and I thought I'd jump in here.

Calibuck
Miami University, 1971, BS Marketing and Economics
Ohio State U, 1976, MBA, Finance
San Jose State, 1990, MA, Educational Administration

But all Buckeye.

:gobucks3::gobucks4::banger:
 
Upvote 0
martinss01;1486809; said:
impossible. the two things are mutually exclusive. we live in a world of limited resources. money, food, resources etc. in order to increase your "value" you must take it from someone else. economics are about violence of intention if not action. for every dollar you gain you are forcibly taking it from someone else. every gain is someone elses loss. competition is by its very nature designed to do harm. the strong get stronger and the weak die.

its just business...
Click to expand...

doesn't that imply no growth?
 
Upvote 0
It does indeed imply 'no growth'. It is also called a 'zero-sum game', where one side gains what the other side loses. A 'positive-sum game' implies that everyone wins something. One might win alot, and the other small, but still everyone gains. I guess the corporation could prosper and the earth suffer (in the example of iron ore into steel), but who's counting mother earth?

In a 'guns and butter' trade, someone with a gun to trade would trade it for butter (for your toast, I guess). When both sides were at their 'feel good' level (they felt they were getting the best of the transaction), the trade took place. Is that a zero or a positive sum game? Dunno.

:gobucks3::gobucks4::banger:
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1488354; said:
If this were true, we'd all still be living in caves.
Click to expand...

http://cavehousesgranada.com/home/index.php?option=com_cmsrealty&Itemid=38

quite a few in missouri as well if im not mistaken. not only are they energy efficient (always 60 degrees so its like geo thermal heating without running the pipes) but it is significantly better for the environment. far fewer resources used in their construction and in many cases no above ground footprint meaning more room for plants to grow.


MaxBuck;1483400; said:
Interesting idea. The bottom line seems to be, "Create value while causing no harm."
Click to expand...

lets assume just for the sake of argument that it is possible to create value without harming anyone or anything in the process. im willing to hit the ol i believe button and move on at this point. so, you honestly think an investor is going to back someone who is willing to take a "cause no harm" approach and very likely receive lower earnings than someone who will do whatever it takes to provide the highest return possible? sorry, im having a tough time swallowing that one.

second, what mechanism will be used to enforce this oath? i fully realize they have a list of e-mail addresses.... so what are they going to do draft a nasty e-mail if someone steps out of line? perhaps they can get a couple solid drafts from the un. and who gets to determine when exactly thats happened?

to me the underlying theme to the audio clip is that mba's fear noone trusts them anymore. a [censored] poor marketing campaign about how they will do no harm with no way to measure or enforce it sure is nifty. but at the end of the day its just talk. they said it themselves, we're all too greedy for our own good. that ain't changing anytime soon. its the whole reason we're not living in caves in the first place...

these two are salesmen. they are marketing "trust" to companies and those that run them who fear their employees and customers no longer believe in them. *shrug* maybe im wrong and missed the point entirely. wouldn't be the first time. but all i hear is a sales pitch.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top