Neil H. Jacoby Quotes

Utopian critics reject both capitalism and authoritarian socialism and seek to establish new social orders based upon different human values.They believe that human nature can be radically changed. Individualistic striving for material gain is to be replaced by cooperative efforts to elevate the moral and cultural character of society. Wealth and income are to be shared according to need rather than according to productivity—an ideal not yet realized in any of the socialist countries. American-style capitalism and Soviet-style socialism equally err, they contend, in having hierarchical structures and in stressing material rewards; the difference between them are not significant.

Although the media editorials have roundly condemned corporations for making political contributions at home and abroad—payments which were legal in many jurisdictions—they have yet to express equal indignation about the congressmen and public officials of this and other nations who receive these payments and who, in many instances, solicited them. Media voices have also been muted about violations of the Corruption Practice Act by the big labor unions.

A corporate manager, interested in playing a numbers game with stock price-earnings ratios for quick profits, is able to inflate current reported profits at the expense of future profits. The methods are legion: shift from accelerated to straight-line depreciation; defer or stretch out maintenance expense; deplete inventories held at low cost; sell assets for ‘one-shot’ income. Excessive flexibility in permissible accounting methods creates opportunities for misleading reports of profits.

Modern management science has made it feasible for corporations to expand the scope and variety of their operations. It has created new economies of scale through which larger aggregations of men, materials, and funds can be efficiently deployed and controlled over larger areas.

Foreign oil companies suffered major expropriations of their property during the postwar period, usually without payment of full compensation to the private owners. These episodes—the most significant were in Algeria, Ceylon, Cuba, Egypt , Iran, Libya, and Peru—followed by many years the first major oil industry expropriation by the Bolshevik government of Russia in 1918 and a second major expropriation of foreign oil properties by the Mexican government in 1938. All illustrated the great latent power of governments over the international oil companies and the reality of the political risks inherent in the industry.

During the sixty years between 1910 and 1970, the percentage of Americans living in urban areas of 2,500 or more rose from 45.7 to 73.5, and the number of urbanites more than tripled from 42 to 150 million. Urbanization clearly has brought important benefits to people… But this overwhelming tendency of people to concentrate in cities has worsened the environment through crowding, traffic congestion, delays and loss of time, and the over-loading of transportation, marketing and living facilities.

Thus the principle that no foreign political payments shall be made often collides with the principle that we should expand international trade and investment, that multinational companies should conform to local business practices, that the United States should avoid extraterritorial application of its laws, or that this county should abjure moral as well as political and economic imperialism.

The emerging censorship of political payments by U.S. business corporations is a potentially important, but little noted, aspect of the recent controversies about these payments. The operating behavior of American business overseas is becoming a new dimension of the public regulations of business. Until recent years, this regulation was concerned with such matters as healthy working conditions for employees, safe and reliable products, and enforcing competition. The disclosure of political payment abroad has led federal agencies to increase still further their role as arbiters of business behavior.

It is widely believed that big business firms collectively own the preponderance of America’s wealth and are steadily expanding their share. The facts show the contrary. Corporate business owns about 28 percent of the tangible wealth of the United States, and its share has not changed much during the past fifty years. The bulk of the nation’s tangible wealth is held by the household and government sectors of the economy and is not employed in profit-seeking enterprise, corporate or noncorporate. …If the character of a society were to be designated by its major wealth-holding institution, the United States could more appropriately be described as a ‘household state’ than a ‘corporate state’.

The Soviet Union, as might be expected, conducted a ceaseless campaign to persuade the less-developed countries to nationalize their petroleum industries, by deprecating the record of private oil enterprises and extolling the virtues of governmental petroleum monopolies.

The postwar tendency of foreign governments to intervene directly in the regulation of petroleum production and pricing contrasts sharply with the laissez-faire policies followed up to World War II. Formerly, rates of output and prices were almost entirely within the discretion of the private oil companies.

The multinational corporation is leading Europe toward a more egalitarian, homogeneous, and democratic society. While traditionalists will deplore the gradual blurring of class and national distinctions, such segmentations cannot in the end withstand the onslaught of technological and economic changes.

Like their counterparts in other Third World nations, Middle Eastern socialist-orientated regimes are inefficient and mismanaged, and they tolerate the use of the political payments by those who must deal with them… The Middle East is one of the world’s most politically volatile regions. Nationalization of foreign investment is frequent, and taxation is high. National rivalries and the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict contribute to the investor’s political risks.

The media have tended to emphasize the notion that it is the American company that initiates the bribe, without laying any emphasis on the fact that around the world, for hundreds of years, companies from other countries have been making payments and paying bribes, and that usually the reason they have done so is that they have been solicited or extorted by politicians and government employees. To point this out is not to negate the blame for making the payments and paying the bribes, but simply to make it clear that in many, if not most, cases the payments are made under duress. All other things being equal, an American business manager would rather avoid the costs of bribes.

If big businesses in concentrated industries truly behaved as oligopolists, one would find higher prices, persistently higher profits, more extensive advertising, and less product innovation among such industries than among unconcentrated industries. However, the facts show either the contrary or insignificant differences. During the period of price inflation from 1965 to 1970, prices rose most in the unconcentrated industries.