Axes and New York City just don’t seem to mix. If you decided to chop down something in Central Park, I imagine that one of those police on a horse would slap a big juicy fine on you. Yet the Best Made Company located in New York City makes axes.
This is one of those rare companies who have found their story and know how to build their company around it. They do a much better job at telling their story then I do, so I suggest you make a visit to their about page to see how it’s done.
You gotta like a company that names their axes: compassion, fortitude, courage, and grace. You also gotta like a company with pithy statements like: “The notion of ‘mastering a tool’ is a bit of fallacy: master your desire, and then the perfect tool will present itself.” The Best Made Company knows how to stand out and inspire.
Conventional wisdom holds that insider trading laws are good. These laws are meant to protect the little guy and are supposed to make trading fair. But according to an article in the Wall Street Journal (Donald Boudreaux) insider trading is impossible to police and helpful to markets and investors. Does this argument have any merit? I don’t know. I do know that this is not the first time this argument has been made. Economists such as Henry Manne, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Daniel Fishel, and Frank Easterbrook have all argued against insider trading laws (Wikipedia).
There’s no need to rehash the arguments against insider trading. The main point I want to make is how to approach arguments that question conventional wisdom. I found this article from tweet from a respectable ethics expert. My question is “why is it moronic?” Before dismissing the argument, tell me how the current law accomplishes its goal of making the market more fair. Does the law really protect the little guy? Or does it allow corporations to manipulate bad information. Tell me why government regulation does a better job than corporate self-governance on the matter. Are insider trading laws outdated in this day of immediate information on the Internet?
My point is that arguments surrounding ethical issues need to have a good dialogue rather than ad hominen attacks against someone as “moronic.” I don’t think people like Milton Friedman are moronic. Let’s discuss the issue and see if there are better ways of handling difficult matters. Dialogue on ethical issues need to stay on a higher plane.
(Chiquita Code of Conduct) Here’s the scenario: you’re a kid and you’re given a banana. What’s the first thing you do? You take off the little Chiquita sticker and place it on your sister’s back or forehead or cheek. It’s almost impossible to eat a banana without doing something with that blue sticker. Then think of the banana itself. It’s iconic. I imagine that it also has some amazing qualities that we’re not even aware of. I’m amazed that I can eat a fresh banana in Alaska.
So I have to say that I was a little disappointed when their code of conduct is called “Code of Conduct Working to Produce Trust.” What a missed opportunity. They could have called it: The Banana, Stay Fresh, The Blue Sticker, or something like that. Who’s that actress who used to dance with the fruit basket on her head? I forget, but they could have used her in the code. OK, that’s probably going too far. My experience is that calling your code – Code of Conduct is forgettable. Find your story and then give your code something a memorable name related to that story.
The rest of the code is pretty good. No legalese. Big bright pictures of fruits and vegetable – although the avocado looks like a fried egg. The scenarios are good. It’s helpful to have real life scenarios. Overall it’s a very good code of conduct.
Ethisphere Article on Chiquita Code: Fresh Take on an Old Code
