Does it reqire that Global companies should concentrate on untapped customer base lying under poverty?The main reason for global crisies were slump in purchasing power all over the world.Now its...

Does it reqire that Global companies should concentrate on untapped customer base lying under poverty?

The main reason for global crisies were slump in purchasing power all over the world.Now its time for all global companies to turn their heads towards the market(people) who are in desperate need to consume but not afffordable due to inaccessible to get loans from the banks(only rich can,now) and lying under extreme poverty. if they would have given chance to utilize on par with rich, may be the economies come back on to track and would provide a chance to eradicate poverty along with opportunities to them stand equal among all which is basic tenets of natural principle of justice and human rights.which are undeniable.and urgent. 

Asked on by realworld

9 Answers | Add Yours

enotechris's profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted on

The role of government is not to give people money so they can spend it, and hope that that'll "jump start" the economy.  Economies and businesses, like seasons, all have their time.  The world had a good summer, now it's winter. Lax rules about loans may have precipitated the onslaught of winter, but that was done by government to insure "housing for all!" and businesses naturally took advantage to make a quick buck.  It was almost like a giant Ponzi scheme, and those at the bottom, the least able to afford it, and the most eager to get in on the "American Dream" ended up paying the price.

If global companies wanted to help the poor, wherever they may be found, they'd market something that they could use and that they could afford. Marketing something they do not need and/or can't afford and promising them they do need and can afford is tantamount to fraud.  Caveat Emptor!

ask996's profile pic

ask996 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Senior Educator

Posted on

Another thing to consider is what will make life better for the economically disadvantaged. Education is a key to the reason why many people are unable to break the poverty cycle. Give them more money, and it gets spent on bills or other items. What if that money were spent on things that made education more affordable for middle and lower economic families? The effects of making education more affordable would keep multiplying throughout a persons life. Whereas money is a finite resource.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I think you have to be careful in making it too easy for those in poverty to have access to more money. That is part of what got  a lot of people in trouble financially, companies offering money to people with questionable means of paying it back. If money is made more accessible the banks needs to be monitored to ensure they are not taking advantage of people, as with the ARM's that balooned to a point people could no longer afford their mortgage payment.

Agreed.  But what if we think about post #1 in a slightly different way.  I'd say that it is very important right now to get money into the hands of small businesses (so somewhere in between the rich and the poor).  Many of them are having trouble staying in business and are certainly not doing new hiring.

The problem with this is that they're often struggling because banks just won't lend -- even to businesses that are good risks for loans.

So, I don't think we should be making it too easy for people with bad credit to get loans, just as you say.  But I do think banks need to make credit more available to those who are not high risk.

Of course, the rub is in figuring out who is and isn't high risk, isn't it...

lrwilliams's profile pic

lrwilliams | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted on

I think you have to be careful in making it too easy for those in poverty to have access to more money. That is part of what got  a lot of people in trouble financially, companies offering money to people with questionable means of paying it back. If money is made more accessible the banks needs to be monitored to ensure they are not taking advantage of people, as with the ARM's that balooned to a point people could no longer afford their mortgage payment.

realworld's profile pic

realworld | College Teacher | (Level 1) Honors

Posted on

In reply to #7:

I do not know all the things that Adam Smith said, but the words attributed to him in the post are most certainly not in line with the concepts of laissez faire and the invisible hand popularized by him. Adam Smith believed that when all buyers and sellers in a market - including buyers and sellers of services - pursuing their own selfish interest in an economy, without external interference, it will automatically lead to achievement of the best interest of the whole society.

I am not suggesting that Adam smith was right or wrong. I am just pointing out that, it is quite unlikely that Adam Smith would have criticized global companies, financial institutions, or any other business organizations for pursuing their own selfish ends, or that his ideas support the view that interest of common people has been hurt by selfishness of business firms.

Yes, But I did not quote him, as you said "I am attributing" in my post, but our both conclusions were same, only different was I have mentioned in a broader way with out quoting him. I said,first there be buying power to people by banks lending.

  Because,If any bank looking repaying capacity during the crises, it cannot be justifiable. Because they(customers) have lost everything at their cost, of life, unconsciously, by providing labor and Buying” for companies sake in society by working in any one of the organizations. At least considering to provide loan to deserved as a sign of justice to them for making them dexterousness in production process by “few”, may take as one of an “Invisible hand” (banks providing capital for “Few”). Here I want to Quote Adam Smith from below reference link:

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

 

 

epollock's profile pic

epollock | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

The ultimate responsibility of companies is to their shareholders.  If that is in the best interests of the company and it improves shareholder value, then by all means do that.  If it doesn't then it should not be done.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

In reply to #5:

I agree. But here my concern is during the period of recession where in the existing bank should have social responsibilities, not only to  reap the profits from people, but also to help them in needy condition that they can come out and settle back to repay. It may take some time but sure they would pay under the guidance of the banks. As Adam Smith said economic activities are primarily service oriented through products and services where people should first buy and pay for us. If they are not in a position to by the products, then what is the meaning of production? Here my view is to provide the needy the financial resources during the hard times and should be monitored, even not in the purview of the banks, that they could come on the track and repay. This is not only helping to raise the standards of needy but also contributing to the economy as a whole cycle through which country can sustain back to grow.

I do not know all the things that Adam Smith said, but the words attributed to him in the post are most certainly not in line with the concepts of laissez faire and the invisible hand popularized by him. Adam Smith believed that when all buyers and sellers in a market - including buyers and sellers of services - pursuing their own selfish interest in an economy, without external interference, it will automatically lead to achievement of the best interest of the whole society.

I am not suggesting that Adam smith was right or wrong. I am just pointing out that, it is quite unlikely that Adam Smith would have criticized global companies, financial institutions, or any other business organizations for pursuing their own selfish ends, or that his ideas support the view that interest of common people has been hurt by selfishness of business firms.

realworld's profile pic

realworld | College Teacher | (Level 1) Honors

Posted on

Why single out only global companies to deal with the problems of recession or any other economic problems. The economic problems is caused by and also affects the global companies as much as any other large and many other smaller companies. Reversing the recession will benefit the global companies will benefit global companies as much as it will benefit most of the companies, perhaps even more. So the global companies are doing what they can about recession.

The problem is not that the global companies or any other big companies are not concerned about recession, are are not making efforts to overcome. The problem is that nobody knows for sure what needs to be done to overcome recession. Approach suggested by Narsing in post #1, that is:

Now its time for all global companies to turn their heads towards the market(people) who are in desperate need to consume but not afffordable due to inaccessible to get loans from the banks(only rich can,now) and lying under extreme poverty.

Is least likely to solve the problem. As a matter of fact one of the major reason of recession was too liberal loans given to people who were not able to repay it.

I agree. But here my concern is during the period of recession where in the existing bank should have social responsibilities, not only to  reap the profits from people, but also to help them in needy condition that they can come out and settle back to repay. It may take some time but sure they would pay under the guidance of the banks. As Adam Smith said economic activities are primarily service oriented through products and services where people should first buy and pay for us. If they are not in a position to by the products, then what is the meaning of production? Here my view is to provide the needy the financial resources during the hard times and should be monitored, even not in the purview of the banks, that they could come on the track and repay. This is not only helping to raise the standards of needy but also contributing to the economy as a whole cycle through which country can sustain back to grow.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

Why single out only global companies to deal with the problems of recession or any other economic problems. The economic problems is caused by and also affects the global companies as much as any other large and many other smaller companies. Reversing the recession will benefit the global companies will benefit global companies as much as it will benefit most of the companies, perhaps even more. So the global companies are doing what they can about recession.

The problem is not that the global companies or any other big companies are not concerned about recession, are are not making efforts to overcome. The problem is that nobody knows for sure what needs to be done to overcome recession. Approach suggested by Narsing in post #1, that is:

Now its time for all global companies to turn their heads towards the market(people) who are in desperate need to consume but not afffordable due to inaccessible to get loans from the banks(only rich can,now) and lying under extreme poverty.

Is least likely to solve the problem. As a matter of fact one of the major reason of recession was too liberal loans given to people who were not able to repay it.

We’ve answered 318,955 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question