The Conflict Between Corporate Profit Drives And The Benefit To Communities
Diageo, the drinks supplier, this week boasted a 24% increase in profits over the year against a FTSE increase of 18%, which is a creditable performance.
The take home drinks market may have benefitted from the no smoking ban in the UK and the recession which has kept people away from pubs.
The challenge now facing the board in Diageo is how to maintain that profits momentum in the future.
Commenting on this one of the news presenters of the channel I was watching asked her interviewee in all innocence, "just how are they going to get people to drink more booze?" It struck me then how strange it must be to be in a job which relies on people drinking more.
In a society where we already drink too much, suffer from too many drink related diseases, have too much domestic violence as a result of alcohol and where alcoholism generally is on the increase, do we really need a body of people trying to get us to drink more? This of course is the problem with the free market as we have concocted it, that it has no scruples when it comes to making money.
This TV news slot highlighted in a small but significant way the absurdity of the economic system we live by.
Of course it doesn't just stop at booze, but any activity which people are prepared to pay for comes into the arena of marketing for profit, regardless of whether we as a society benefit or not.
This was fine in the past when the engine of capitalism was a necessary and beneficial spur to creating wealth.
But now the original fine intentions of this type of economic model have been hi-jacked by parties only interested in creating profits for themselves without any consideration for the damage they cause to the environment at large.
As we become more enlightened in the 21st century, surely we will begin to notice more the ambiguities and double standards of our social models.
We cannot on the one hand condemn drunk teenagers for ruining our town centres through drink binges, then encourage drinks companies to sell more booze as and when they please.
It is time for far more sophisticated politico-economic models that take into account individual lives.
In the future, companies will be far more accountable to the communities they serve.
Taxes from the big booze giants ought to go towards health and rehabilitation of those who come under fire from their marketing.
Only this type of interconnectedness between action and consequences will lead to a better world for everyone.
The take home drinks market may have benefitted from the no smoking ban in the UK and the recession which has kept people away from pubs.
The challenge now facing the board in Diageo is how to maintain that profits momentum in the future.
Commenting on this one of the news presenters of the channel I was watching asked her interviewee in all innocence, "just how are they going to get people to drink more booze?" It struck me then how strange it must be to be in a job which relies on people drinking more.
In a society where we already drink too much, suffer from too many drink related diseases, have too much domestic violence as a result of alcohol and where alcoholism generally is on the increase, do we really need a body of people trying to get us to drink more? This of course is the problem with the free market as we have concocted it, that it has no scruples when it comes to making money.
This TV news slot highlighted in a small but significant way the absurdity of the economic system we live by.
Of course it doesn't just stop at booze, but any activity which people are prepared to pay for comes into the arena of marketing for profit, regardless of whether we as a society benefit or not.
This was fine in the past when the engine of capitalism was a necessary and beneficial spur to creating wealth.
But now the original fine intentions of this type of economic model have been hi-jacked by parties only interested in creating profits for themselves without any consideration for the damage they cause to the environment at large.
As we become more enlightened in the 21st century, surely we will begin to notice more the ambiguities and double standards of our social models.
We cannot on the one hand condemn drunk teenagers for ruining our town centres through drink binges, then encourage drinks companies to sell more booze as and when they please.
It is time for far more sophisticated politico-economic models that take into account individual lives.
In the future, companies will be far more accountable to the communities they serve.
Taxes from the big booze giants ought to go towards health and rehabilitation of those who come under fire from their marketing.
Only this type of interconnectedness between action and consequences will lead to a better world for everyone.
