What's wrong with public policy that serves the common good?

[Robert_Sock]

I went grocery shopping today and I needed some pasta sauce. With many to choose from, I found a product called Common Good by Newman’s. More interesting, the label states that all the profits would be given to charity. I checked some of the other products by Newman’s, and again it said that all the profits would go to charity.

Is this perhaps a sign that businesses are going to be looking to promote the common good in the near future, or is the president of Newman’s a lunatic who places the common good above profits?

I chose the Common Good pasta sauce because I believe that the world needs to focus on the common good of all people.

I also read a while back that Bill Gates has donated half of his wealth to help fight extreme poverty, which he and the World Bank says will come to an end by 2030.

I have no gripes against capitalism provided the business leaders act altruistically.

So, what’s wrong with promoting the common good even if it means some sacrifice on our part?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Newman’s. Was founded by actor Paul Newman who already had so much money he was generous enough to donate profits. He was a great philanthropist. In June 1999, Newman donated $250,000 to Catholic Relief Services to aid refugees in Kosovo.

 

[Theo520]

By all means buy his sauce, if you like it.
You could also buy the cheaper sauce and give the difference to your charity of choice.

It’s an excellent marketing brand (your OP shows it) but it requires analysis to understand how prudent it is, if your goal is charity funding. For example, do they have low operating costs, or do they pay Clinton Foundation level salaries to their staff?

I’ve turned sour on many large charities based on how they use the “help others” as a shill to get donations more than a mission.

I tried to find out their average after tax profit margin but couldn’t find it, this concerns me.

 

[on_the_hill]

So, what’s wrong with promoting the common good even if it means some sacrifice on our part?

Nothing. Isn’t this one of the central messages of the Church? To put others before ourselves?

Aside from that, I wouldn’t say this is a new trend. There are way too many companies to list.

 

[Leifler]

By all means buy his sauce, if you like it.
You could also buy the cheaper sauce and give the difference to your charity of choice.

It’s an excellent marketing brand (your OP shows it) but it requires analysis to understand how prudent it is, if your goal is charity funding. For example, do they have low operating costs, or do they pay Clinton Foundation level salaries to their staff?

I’ve turned sour on many large charities based on how they use the “help others” as a shill to get donations more than a mission.

I tried to find out their average after tax profit margin but couldn’t find it, this concerns me.

Yes! The how it is done is more important than the what they say is being done. We could solve alot of problems if the focus was less on pretty words and more on actions.

I did a quick search on the company in the OP and it appears Paul Newman was probably the real deal caring type. Yet this article seems to show what happens when a good leader gets successors, rarely does it stay as good

showbiz411.com/2015/07/19/paul-newman-foundation-president-nearly-doubled-salary-in-four-years

I can imagine as the daughter is apparently upset, families in these situations must get torn up seeing corruption take hold of their loved one’s work

 

[Theo520]

any in the OP and it appears Paul Newman was probably the real deal caring type. Yet this article seems to show what happens when a good leader gets successors, rarely does it stay as good
showbiz411.com/2015/07/19/paul-newman-foundation-president-nearly-doubled-salary-in-four-years

I can imagine as the daughter is apparently upset, families in these situations must get torn up seeing corruption take hold of their loved one’s work

It was sad to read your story, it shows how so many non-profits turn when they have steady cash coming - the people in charge turn selfish.

 

[shockerfan]

Promoting “the common good” is good for business, as the company has accurately determined that a donation of some of their profits to a good cause will persuade people like you to buy their product!

I’m certainly not saying there is anything wrong with what they are doing. I would call this a “win / win / win” scenario: a charity wins, the business wins, and if they product is good, you win too!

 

[JonNC]

I went grocery shopping today and I needed some pasta sauce. With many to choose from, I found a product called Common Good by Newman’s. More interesting, the label states that all the profits would be given to charity. I checked some of the other products by Newman’s, and again it said that all the profits would go to charity.

Is this perhaps a sign that businesses are going to be looking to promote the common good in the near future, or is the president of Newman’s a lunatic who places the common good above profits?

I chose the Common Good pasta sauce because I believe that the world needs to focus on the common good of all people.

I also read a while back that Bill Gates has donated half of his wealth to help fight extreme poverty, which he and the World Bank says will come to an end by 2030.

I have no gripes against capitalism provided the business leaders act altruistically.

So, what’s wrong with promoting the common good even if it means some sacrifice on our part?

This is a great thing Newman does, but a business can promote the common good in many ways. By producing and selling a product such as pasta sauce, many people benefit: the farmer, the manufacturers workers and owners who produce the tools the farmer uses, his employees, the factory workers and owners where the sauce is made, the trucking company employees and owners who deliver it to market, the grocery store employees and owners who sell the product, etc.

Properly done, capitalism does promote the common good.

Jon

 

[BCole]

Businesses utilizing a portion of their profits for charitable work is far better than the fake charity of governments.

 

[BobCatholic]

I also read a while back that Bill Gates has donated half of his wealth to help fight extreme poverty, which he and the World Bank says will come to an end by 2030.

He got rich through layoffs. He announced layoffs, then yay, his stock price rose.

Can’t fight poverty somewhere else while causing it here.

 

[Theo520]

He got rich through layoffs. He announced layoffs, then yay, his stock price rose.

Can’t fight poverty somewhere else while causing it here.

LOL, no, this doesn’t reflect his history.

Bill was the richest guy and retired long before MSFT started announcing layoffs. He’s also been diversifying his investments for decades.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

As asked, who is going to say otherwise? Of course public policy that serves the common good is a good thing. But that’s like asking “who doesn’t like rainbow unicorn’s who burp up gold and silver?”

As written, the alternative is public policy that doesn’t serve the common good. Sounds dastardly.

The devil is in the details - defining common good, for example.

Newman donating his profits to charity is great, until I find out that charity is Planned Parenthood, for example.

 

[BobCatholic]

LOL, no, this doesn’t reflect his history.

Bill was the richest guy and retired long before MSFT started announcing layoffs. He’s also been diversifying his investments for decades.

Diversifying investments?

He bought that cell phone company that went bust and went “oops! I made a mistake so I’ll punish the 19,000 employees for my bad mistake”

Microsoft stock rose after the layoffs were announced. He got richer that way.

 

[Theo520]

Diversifying investments?

He bought that cell phone company that went bust and went “oops! I made a mistake so I’ll punish the 19,000 employees for my bad mistake”

Microsoft stock rose after the layoffs were announced. He got richer that way.

Nokia was bought well after Bill’s departure, Steve was running the show I think. Please get your facts right if you are going to disparage people. Bill has plenty of faults, but you aren’t pinging them.

 

[BobCatholic]

Nokia was bought well after Bill’s departure, Steve was running the show I think. Please get your facts right if you are going to disparage people. Bill has plenty of faults, but you aren’t pinging them.

So Bill Gates wasn’t involved in the decision either to buy or do layoffs? About buying, the jury is out.

However, he was Nadella’s advisor. I’m sure he said to chop heads. So it was his belief that 18,000 people should be punished because Ballmer and Nadella made mistakes.

He clearly is happy with what Nadella is doing.
businessinsider.com/bill-gates-is-very-happy-with-nadella-2014-10

 

[Theo520]

So Bill Gates wasn’t involved in the decision either to buy or do layoffs? About buying, the jury is out.

However, he was Nadella’s advisor. I’m sure he said to chop heads. So it was his belief that 18,000 people should be punished because Ballmer and Nadella made mistakes.

He clearly is happy with what Nadella is doing.
businessinsider.com/bill-gates-is-very-happy-with-nadella-2014-10

I’m not going to divert this thread into a discussion of Microsoft’s repetitive failures in hardware ventures.

Please get your facts right if you are going to disparage people. Bill has plenty of faults, but you aren’t pinging them.

 

[BobCatholic]

I’m not going to divert this thread into a discussion of Microsoft’s repetitive failures in hardware ventures.

Please get your facts right if you are going to disparage people. Bill has plenty of faults, but you aren’t pinging them.

I’m not talking about hardware failures. I don’t care about those.

What I said is that Microsoft’s upper management punishes people with layoffs because of the bad decisions of Microsoft’s upper management.

Billy boy had his fingerprints on this. This is his policy.

Ballmer and Nadella didn’t all of a sudden say “Hey, here’s a new idea! Let’s go against Microsoft’s way of doing things for decades you set up, Mr. Gates, and punish people with layoffs for us making mistakes.”

This was done with his approval.

They’re not going to ignore the (name removed by moderator)ut of the guy who owns most of the company. he has too much political power there for that to happen.