> Better than nothing, less than ideal, is the theme, but we can't expect the benevolence of corporations if we want to get the world closer to "ideal. But may

> Better than nothing, less than ideal, is the theme, but we can't expect the benevolence of corporations if we want to get the world closer to "ideal. But maybe, we can encourage and highlight the ones that are willing to provide social good beyond profit extraction? I understand how the world's top companies become so cut throat, especially those that are publicly traded. But that's not most companies, at least not in the US. Most of them are reasonably sized, privately owned, and most likely the investors are the members of the board. I'm thinking out loud here, but perhaps if cities played the long tail and offered incentives to the small companies, or those with compensation that is within the top tier, maybe it would draw not just existing business but also spur the creation of new ones that will pay taxes, hire people who will also pay taxes while the company also pays taxes on the employees. It seems like a city diversifying that way (and perhaps accentuating their competitive advantage) would make for a much more stable economy overall. I just feel think that capitalism and business itself have so much potential for long term good and helping folks, and maybe we should, culturally, shift our incentives and thinking about what those priorities should be. Of course, competing globally, this becomes much harder to execute, because you will be tempted to race to the bottom. But personally, and am only going off of hunch and absorbed anecdotal info, but I don't think that most of the businesses in any community are competing globally. I tend to think that most economic activity happens locally, be that city, state, or national. And perhaps like a lot of things in the US, maybe we should treat this as a health issue. Long term company health, and not try to soak anyone dry just because our stock price will go up 0.0002% this quarter.