I think Milton Friedman was correct in this view, at least. I vote for a Member of Parliament to spend tax dollars according to the wishes of the electorate. I do not vote with my consumer dollars for corporations to get involved in this or that charity. If they do so, it means they are using profits earned in the marketplace to make a social statement, a statement they were not elected to make. A statement that represents only their perceived interests, usually aimed at long term profit maximization. They are using my consumer dollars to say and do things that I did not intend them to do. Let them do what they do best: Make profits, turn out reasonable quality products.
arthur cordell > A counter to her argument can be found in the book Capitalism and Freedom > (University of Chicago, 1962), where economist Milton Friedman writes: > > The view has been gaining widespread acceptance that corporate officials and > labor leaders have a 'social responsibility' that goes beyond serving the > interest of their stockholders or their members. This view shows a > fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In > such an economy there is one and only one social responsibility of business > - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its > profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, > engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraudS if > businessmen do have a social responsibility other than making maximum > profits for their stockholders, how are they to know what it is? -----Original Message----- From: jan matthieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brian McAndrews Subject: Re: Slapping the hidden hand? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian McAndrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:04 PM Subject: Slapping the hidden hand? > A counter to her argument can be found in the book Capitalism and Freedom > (University of Chicago, 1962), where economist Milton Friedman writes: > > The view has been gaining widespread acceptance that corporate officials and > labor leaders have a 'social responsibility' that goes beyond serving the > interest of their stockholders or their members. This view shows a > fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In > such an economy there is one and only one social responsibility of business > - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its > profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, > engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraudS if > businessmen do have a social responsibility other than making maximum > profits for their stockholders, how are they to know what it is? If they are members of the human race, they should indeed have some clues. If they really would believe that "making maximum profits for their stockholders" 'staying within the rules of the game' is the only thing that counts or matters, I would say there is something wrong with their view of their own humanity. Economics don't happen in an ethical void. And 'the rules of the game' ar being made and bent as the game develops by those in power. Can > self-selected private individuals decide what the social interest is? > (Capitalism and Freedom, 1962) > Who then can? Self selection is most usually what comes before being selected by the public. > If demanding social responsibility posed a threat to personal freedom when > Friedman wrote his book in 1962, what about now? Says Friedman (now at > Stanford University's Hoover Institution) "It is indeed true that greater > social responsibility by corporations, as that term is ordinarily > interpreted, would tend to reduce freedom." But he adds, "[T]he arguments of > the anti-globalists on this score as on so many others are so incoherent and > confused that they do not deserve a serious answer." > One would be tempted to ask what he means by freedom. The 'freedom' that is in conflict with 'social responsibility' should by definition be socially irresponsible then? So this means that the interests of a few should be of greater importance than the interests of 'society' then. Interesting. > Fred McMahon of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market think tank that > coordinates the World Economic Freedom Network, is more expansive. Says > McMahon, "[I]t is an imposition on freedom for government to impose social > considerations on companies and individuals. It is also an imposition of > freedom for activists or even company management to impose such > considerations on the owners of the firm, the stockholders. Such regulations > or restrictions prevent individuals and groups from reaching agreements they > might otherwise voluntarily enter into... Companies or individuals can only > sell products in a free market if they offer choices that are superior - in > quality, price, features, or a mix of these -- from a consumer's > perspective. Thus, freedom supports continual increases in, at least, > material well-being." > Utter crap. Even the liberals (the 'globalists') here in Belgium wouldn't underwrite that. > McMahon adds, "From a third world 'sweatshop' perspective, workers will only > accept such jobs if they present an improvement on other options. These jobs > may not seem pleasant to an affluent first world activist - who lives in a > place that has benefited from relatively free markets for generations - but > they may mark a significant step up for a third world worker and family. It > is ethically wrong for someone in, say, Toronto, to impose their political > opinions, and limit the freedom of poor third world workers who see a path > to greater opportunity." But he draws the line at economic coercion. > I had the 'opportunity' of working with the poorest in a 'third world country' for some years in the 70's. It's unbelievable anyone who actually experienced the reality of these countries could be thinking such nonsense honestly. Options?? As if people who are starving with 60 other candidates standing ready to take their place are having 'other options'. What utter disgusting nonsense. > On the flip side, Klein in her book, No Logo, questions whether workers in > sweatshop factories really have all that much freedom in their choice of > employment. Writing of a trip she made to the Philippines, she says, > "Many...workers told me that they would have stayed home if they could, but > the choice was made for them..." (No Logo, 1999) Right. She understood, she's intelligent; McMahon must be either a moron or a knave of big business. Or both. Jan Matthieu
