Don't think I've ever mentioned business as such. Certainly, I never said that "business has no business
> doing anything except cutting costs -- even if the final outcome will be the destruction of the social world even if not the entire elimination of the human species."
Brad is writing subjectively again, which we may all do but it's hard to break him away from his prejudices.
"Business" - whatever that is - would like to supply us with the cheapest quality at the highest price. The market prevents them from doing that. That's why there is so much corporate opposition to the free market.
I'm not sure what "business ethics" are - particularly what is taught at Stanford, or anywhere else for that matter.
I bet they start with "a person seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
A business can't have a morality. It can have rules set by people who have a good morality - but that's all. Only people can be moral.
In the market place, a business (which, remember, is people) has every right to charge you as high a price as it can get. You equally have a right not to buy from them. Neither of you are doing anything immoral, or unethical.
However, competition is the lifeblood of the market and before long entry of competing products force the high priced business to cut its prices. (Then, you might actually buy from them.)
If you and others don't buy from them because other companies provide better products at cheaper prices - they will go broke. This is the fate of any business that fails to do what we want. ("We" are consumers, which are everybody.)
So, the free market actually cuts your cost of living - at the expense of these nasty people who think that "the business of business is profit-making."
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence wrote:
The 'business of business' is whatever we define it to be. It is a social choice.Defined as you have attributed to Harry, business is, at best, a mixed benefit. As a society, we can do better, we can make better choices. Business schools in the US, and probably elsewhere, have fallen into this simplistic and self-serving trap, of thinking that the business of business is profit-making. A few business schools, e.g. Stanford, have begun to realize the limitations of this formulation and have introduced 'ethics' into their courses. It is a step, if a small one, in the right direction. As for Davos, it seems the Attorney-general is having his lunch handed to him.... Cheers, Lawry > > When I read this last point, I think of what I have learned > from Harry, that business has no business > doing anything except cutting costs -- even if > the final outcome will be the destruction of > the social world even if not the entire > elimination of "the human species" ( which > you all know I bbelieve is only something real only > for university verterbrate biology professors and > similar occupations). > > Because the United States Attorney General is > at Davos (having a free lunch even though there is > no such thing?), we are told this proves that security > problems there have been solved.
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 1/21/2003
