"Also another reason why success as the leader of a private company does not translate well to success as in a government office. In the private sector you are concerned with self interest, in the public sector you are concerned with the welfare of the populace."

The is such a false statement. It should read:

"In the private sector you are concerned with making money, in politics you are concerned with getting re-elected."

Which ficticious politician in D.C. do you think gives a fuck about you?

Your job as an executive government official is to be concerned with the welfare of the state. Your job as an executive of a corporation is to be concerned with how much money you can make. You don't care about the welfare of your stockholders, except maybe the board to whom you answer.

Also no, I'm still trying to understand how someone can justify NOT regulating corporations. Any way you look at it it seems like you HAVE to regulate corporations or else they will do some fucked up shit.

And please don't imply shit about my position of on corporate charity. It's because of government regulation that we have corporate charity, I never stated my position on it, but certainly some good has come of it. I want you to recognize that some good has come from regulating corporations as well, be it through tax regulations or otherwise.

Admit that and I don't think we're at odds at all.

I'm telling you that "some" companies will continue philanthropy because it will help them from a marketing standpoint. And I've already agreed that tax loopholes need to be examined thuroughly. But I'm certain (even without knowing your position) that you wish for regulation to be far more stringent than I do. Too much regulation puts a stranglehold on the business world. There has to be a balance.

What's more effective, charity or advertising? Most people don't give a shit that Nike has basically slave laborers making their shoes. So why do you think they would know or even care if Nike holds some charity event for some community.

As I said, show me 1 example of what you're describing and I will show you 10 examples that show a company doing the opposite. It's the internet it shouldn't be hard to find anything Rob. Besides if you find 10 examples yourself, that's a huge pain in the ass for me to find 100 counter examples.

We're not talking about how stringent regulations need to be, I'm asking you to recognize that they are necessary. A lot of the tax breaks companies get aren't from loopholes. GE does a lot of green technology stuff and got its tax breaks fair and square. I think it's bullshit, but I understand it. I'm just asking you whether you think it's a good idea to provide any sort of regulatory incentive for corporations to give back to the communities they take from (through taxes or charity write-offs).

By the way, usually a good CEO doesn't randomly say hey, let's give all these poor people lots of money. That CEO would get fired. So yeah, not really buying what you're trying to sell to me.

And again, Bill Gates doesn't help save sick children because he wants to give microsoft a good name, he does it because he's rich and a nice guy.

Also, I'd like to see a CEO explain to a board meeting why he gave away say X percent of their profit to whatever charity without any sort of benefit to their company aside from some intangible "marketability" when all the stockholders are concerned with is the bottom line. Shit some of them might flat out disagree with what charity you're giving to, not to mention that it's eating into THEIR money. Unless you justify it through tax write-offs there's rarely a scenario will a company really need to fix its reputation. As far as marketing is concerned, I'm pretty sure paying for actual advertising is probably more effective.

Perhaps tonight I'll find you some examples, but I don't have time at work. If you took away incentives to do charity this country would be a far uglier place, I do know that. But some companies would still do the right thing. Not all companies are shareholder owned.

well private companies that are only incorporated in name aren't but obviously that's not what we refer to when we are referring to a corporation.

Chrysler is a good example of a company only incorporated in name. It was actually still owned privately... until the recent financial crisis wherein it became a public company.