In the past week, we have been discussing John Locke's ideas about labor and property. The concensus that was reached seemed to be that Locke is a strong supporter of acquiring as much property as one wants, and we established that property can be classified as anything that one can take from the earth and mix our labor into it, which in turn makes it our own. This can also be said in regards to money, Locke believes that money represents one's own stored labor, which can be used in the purchase of goods, or simply stored, since money is not something that can spoil; therefore, we can acquire as many posessions and as much money as we please.
There was an article on the New York Times website titled "Exxon Grew as Oil Industry Contracted", written by Jad Mouawad. The article speaks about Exxon taking advantage of the fall in the oil industries profits in 2009, due to the fall in oil prices "as consumers cut spending and businesses shed jobs" (Mouawad). Even though Exxon Mobil Corp was also hurt by the fall in oil prices, they were not hurt as much as some of their smaller rivals in the industry; therefore, they took advantage of the weaknesses and bought out many of these small rivals in order to expand their company and "acquire promising assets" (Mouawad). They hope that this will in turn produce bigger profits once the economy bounces back. They also mention that due to new drilling technology, they have found new oil reserves and have begun new projects in countries like Africa, Iraq, and Ghana, which can produce promising profits in the future. This article, in my opinion, strengthens Locke's argument about acquiring property and money because, in regards to Exxon, they are using their money to acquire these smaller oil companies and growing their industry, which according to Locke is permissible since anything that one acquires through money can be called our own because money represents one's own labor. Locke would also be in agreement with Exxon expanding their assets to generate more profit, because Locke would be in favor of acquiring money and property without limit. In this case, I would agree that the expansion of the Exxon is permissible because they are a corporation and therefore, making profit is their sole purpose. But on the other hand, can we really be content with allowing corporations to acquire as much land, money, and any other assets, without limit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post. This made me think about the discussions we were having in class about corporations being seen as citizens and given the same rights as citizens, but to what cost? If you apply Locke's way of thinking then these big name companies can take as much property as they want and that just doesn't seem right in my opinion. But by this Exxon company buying these smaller oil companies, new jobs can be created or jobs can be lost. I hope this makes some type sense.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is how Locke would view these acquisitions as well. The fact that Exxon Mobil was able to survive the crisis and not hurt as much as some smaller companies probably speaks to their ability to maintain productive operations. I think Locke might agree as well that increased profit is probably a direct result of increased productivity and increased efficiency. If Exxon Mobil is more efficient with the same land than these smaller companies that they are currently absorbing, I think Locke would say that they are adding a significant value in the form of increased productivity to humankind.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Locke would ever say a company could get too big or not. It seems that he would be all for their expansion. I don't know about other countries around the world, but I know for a fact that if a corporation got too big in an industry and was dominating it in the US that they would be subject to some sort of anti-trust laws. So at least there's some way to keep a corporation from completely cheating American people if it ever grew to such a size through acquisition that it could fix prices, etc.
Jackie, you have a very interesting argument. To start, Locke believes men can come to own land since God gave men the earth, yet he believes that nothing was made by God for man to spoil. You state, that Exxon Mobil took advantage of the weaknesses of their rivals (small businesses) and bought them out in order to expand their company and acquire promising assets. Yes, Exxon has the right to acquire property and expand. However, these small businesses did not allow their property (land) to spoil but were victims of the falling oil profits. According to Locke, if those small businesses were allowing their property to spoil, then Exxon would have the right to acquire their property. Perhaps, there was a way for the small businesses to save their companies, which would have enabled them to acquire wealth as well.
ReplyDeleteNice post Jacqueline, I like the connection you made. I have to both agree and disagree about you relation to Locke. First, I agree that he would be encouraging of Exxon to gain as much profit as possible and use the land is every way. He does stress the ethos of Industry and how failing to labor the earth is actually wasteful. However, he also talks about the natural limits of property, and how one should only take as much as they need. Yes, with the acquisition of money, he says the natural limits of property do not apply. What about the acquisition of oil though? I believe he would not approve of Exxon's decisions because they are clearly taking more than they need and possibly stealing from the rest of mankind by doing so.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting article and the connection you made there. These corporations are buying out the little guys to make more money and profit. The fact that they are bough with money and money is our store labor which in the end makes it our. That was a strong connection and Locke would agree with that. They buy the companies and work the land. According to Locke, that would make these oil fields theirs because they are the ones putting their labor into it.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good observation, it almost seems that exxon preyed on these smaller companies so that they could use this to their advantage in order to expand for themselves. This sounds similar to what we covered in class about acquiring something from others illegally then all that is produced from that property is thereafter illegal, although their dealings with the other companies were legal, there seems to be some underlying deceit, this as we all know is not uncommon within companies. I just find it to be a little ironic that as soon as exxon purchase the smaller companies they begin to expand and find new oil wells, with the economy the way that it is one would think that they would be trying to reserve what they have instead of spending money to drill to find new wells.
ReplyDeleteI think i see what you trying to say with Exxon. Seems as if Exxon useing the stored up labor which they have recieved from extracting oil from the ground and selling it. By using this stored up labor they are purchasing smaller companies hoping to do better for overall business. Locke would have to say yes they are putting their stored up labor into use. Also thing about Exxon is that they are such huge company that's actually a problem. By them purchasing so many small companies they are also eliminating their compotition, which is bad for the overall community. If there's less compotition in that particular industry, means price will probably go up because they control so much up that industry. Overall i see your connection with Locke.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a great example of what we are learning in class. Locke talks about how we are able to own as much party as we may use. This is wrong in my opinion due to many smaller companies will get taken over and jobs will be lost, yes some may also be gained but at what cost will these big companies go to get what they want? Also this proves the fact that companies should not be looked at as people and should not have the same rights as people, giving companies the same rights will back fire on people because they are heartless and unlike people they have no emotions.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have to agree with your post Jacqueline. The connection between Locke's view of acquiring things through money can clearly be seen through this news story.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of acquisition, by Locke's point of view, this absolutely can happen, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Like we said in class even if a person were to pick all the apples around and make apple sauce to sell to others, while no one else could pick fresh apples, that would be okay, because the first person is doing so through labor.
The same thing can be seen here. I think it was Kevin in class that said that the limit of acquisition can almost be considered amoral, where there is no problem in taking whatever you want as long as you don't let it go to waste. And I agree with his claim. Exxon is fortunate enough that they do have the resources so that they can expand, and while we don't want to see the smaller businesses failing and being bought out by major corporations, by Locke they have the right to do so.