AMEX & TakePart Announce 2010 Members Project Just saw a commercial for this on TV, apparently AMEX sees being socially responsible as a good business move. Consumer awareness is causing this, thanks in large part to the internet. Other companies will be competing to prove that they are a benefit to society in order to win the support of conscientious consumers. Why couldn't voluntary systems like these replace the coercive welfare system?
No, but you must know by now (after all your time in this forum) we don't currently employ a free market. The reason a voluntary system doesn't exist is because the welfare system already absolves that sense of social duty within everyone of us. Not to mention robs us of our economic power.
That is an inacccurate statement. Citizens in every city of America feel and act on a sense of civic duty every day in soup kitchens, shelters, and not-for profits. Big for profit corporations are just not willing to slice deeply enough into the bottom line to take over for government social aid, and I agree not for profits are in a position of limited funding. I don't see that as being a result of medicare.
Wow, really? People volunteer? What I meant is the sense of duty is greatly diminished by the presence of a nanny state. You don't think the capacity for philanthropy would increase if we weren't giving our money to the Federal government to squander? Because they have no incentives, the voice of the American consumer is weakened by our transferance of purchasing power to the state and willful ignorance. I wasn't just referring to individual entitlements, but medicare has a negative impact by taxing income for an insolvent program and destroying competition thus healthy prices. The roles of the welfare state extend far beyond failing to help the needy. While you and I may recognize corporate subsidies and bailouts for what they are, they're passed under the guise of welfare.
First off i wonder how much the advertising they get from supporting this good cause really ammounts especially the positive connotations granted to their business by association. Second they support donations but give relatively little themselves. Thirdly they are a credit card company that thrives off persuading people to consume above their means in a socially irresponsable manner. In all it looks good on the surface but really is aimed at increasing their profit margin at the expense of the people they are trying to make money off.
The whole reason AMEX is sponsoring the program, and advertising it, is because it makes them look good. I am not saying they actually want to do good, but the means certainly justify the end. Relative to who? That's the whole point. If a competitor can make the claim that they donate 1% of profits to charity vs .5% they will gain public favor. don't know if you read the article, but they're donating 200k to 5 charities every 3 months based on our vote. That's $4 million annually. Credit cards are not socially irresponsible, its the moral hazard provided by the Federal Reserve. Don't blame the symptoms.1 How is it at the expense of the people they are trying to make money off of? Everybody benefits from this, and its all voluntary. Edit: you do need to be an amex member to donate through the site.
A socially responsible credit card company? Just because they donated a few bucks to charity? oh lord...
You see a company taking a stand for social responsibility, I see another credit card company that just came up with another way to encourage card holders to rack up their credit card debt. Amex like every other company in the world has "Make Money for Shareholders" as their #1 reason for being in business. They wouldn't be doing this unless it made them more money. Their corporate charter will not allow it. And it's not expanding the pool of charity money in the world, it's just making sure that Amex gets a cut of the money in the form of usage fees on their cards. It's a BS marketing move at best.
Don't twist my words, I'm not an absolutist. I said they're exhibiting socially responsible actions. And why are credit card companies inherently evil in your opinion? They didn't donate a few bucks to charity, they're sponsoring a liberal community organization that encourages individual philanthropy and partakes in political activism. Only a brainwashed anti-capitalist is incapable of seeing the social benefit from such a venture. What? Dude. Read the other posts before posting yours. I don't think AMEX is taking a stand for social responsibility, I think they are attempting to meet consumer demands while improving their image. Exactly my point, corporations in a free market make more money by satisfying consumers. Oh wait, I forgot, profits are evil even if they arise through mutual benefit... What will they not allow? It is definitely expanding philanthropy, don't see how you could say otherwise. Reading the article I posted. They donate to charities of our choice (not special interests), they pay you in rewards points for volunteering in your community, and then they accept those reward points as monetary donations to other charities. To those complaining about donating to charities with credit must not know how the state finances its operations. It is a marketing ploy, but you can't just disregard the other organizations behind it that truly wish to inspire change.
The problem with credit cards is they are specificly in place to supply credit (ie small loan to an agreed figure) for undisclosed periods with little or no requirement to prove you can affod to repay the loan. The intrest rate for an amex card in the UK at the moment is 19.9%apr in spite of the fact that the base rate is 0.5% and this is explained away by 'uncertainties in the market.' So what are these uncertainties? Credit card spending can be tricky to master, get it right and you are laughing all the way to the bank with instant access to cheap credit and the potential to earn a little back in the meantime, however get it wrong and it’s easy to fall into the debt trap, leaving yourself faced with huge interest bills and unmanageable repayments. Read more: Top 10 Credit Cards - Compare Best UK Credit Card Deals Now when i was younger i had a few credit cards and ended up having to get a loan to pay them off, and i am pretty damn responsible with my money. The problem was that they kept thowing money at me, upped my limit without me wanting or asking for it and eventually i owed £3k at about 15%apr. Keeping up the payments became difficult and i had to consolidate to be able to keep up my payments and my lifestyle. They upped my limit again at that point and i cut the card up and have never owned one since. The uncertanties are that a hell of a lot of people do get in trouble with cards because they encourage you to spend beyond your means and are far easier to get hold of than a loan. I think you have to look at it holisticly to understand, people are encouraged to want from an early age and that they need the things they want. Credit is the way to get it in early adulthood and it gets thrown at you indiscrimanately fror the sole purpose of getting you in debt at stupid rates of intrest. Then there is the fact that people take up on this scheme and get a nice rosy glow from knowing they are helping others. There is no need to go give time to a soup kitchen or other good cause because your paying for it already. Pretty soon the soup kitchen has to close because on one will volunteer (why should they when they give all the time with amex points) and they can't PAY people to do it because they are a small charity. Or you can donate money through your card (and pay intrest to the company for the privalige) and again no need to volunteer. I'd rather see people encouraged to spend within their means and save to get the things they want as opposed to instant gratification through stupidly high intrest credit.
For the millionth time, the credit market is heavily distorted. For example, AMEX picked up over $3 billion from the US government in bailouts. What difference does it make if you pay them with the product of your labor rather than direct labor? And the program PAYS you to volunteer, so the incentive to volunteer is provided by the evil AMEX. What? If people are donating to charities then other people will still be volunteering in their place, and like I said, AMEX pays you to volunteer. What percentage of tax money is spent on bureacracy? I'm willing to bet the interest is less. And not everybody has the time to volunteer, that's why they donate their income. I don't support credit cards either, don't see why you're trying to change the topic. The intention of my thread is to show how private businesses can meet societal needs without coercion. If Amex has invested in this marketing project then they have done their research, obviously there is a demand for charitable outlets. Without the state I believe the void left in the place of welfare would be filled using methods not dissimilar from this one. Maybe VISA will come out with a plan that doesn't charge interest on donations? In the future I see a user generated charity website.
Oh sweet! Then I'll donate that million bucks i always wanted to. /sarcasm Private companies completely taking over the responsibilities of the "nanny" state is not at all probable.
No. I would think the VISA Philanthropy Card plan, complete with donation limits and obligations, would ensure protection against abuse. Good thing you don't run a company. Not private companies, consumers (the people). Private companies providing a platform is just the first step, which is why I said user generated charity websites would be preferred. AMEX getting involved is just a sign that there is a demand for this, as I've said several times in this thread. I wouldn't want something to "completely take over", but to replace. The current system doesn't work, so why should we keep it? People should not feel entitled to welfare, they should be grateful for it. Guaranteeing it creates the moral hazard and has led to unavoidable deficits.
Because I'm not willing to give up my representation to satisfy an unproven science experiment that has never been successfully implemented. I think fixing the system we have, rather then dismantling it all together, is a more realistic approach.
Give up? You would be increasing your representation. You decide where your money goes, not some dick in Washington. Yes, minor reform is less radical but also futile. It is the nature of bureaucracies to become wasteful and corrupted. Our current system is not sustainable and I think we'll be forced into dismantling anyways.
Nah man, it's better if we continue building on top of the pile of shit, rather than disposing of the pile of shit to pave the way for real foundation which will actually support future progress. WHERE'S YOUR HEAD MAN?!?