Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Where We Went Wrong: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 08:28 PM
Original message
Where We Went Wrong: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

by Milton Friedman

The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.

When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Busi­nessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.

Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.

In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

...more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Since Reagan: The Corporation has only responsibility to the Inveestor
This gives them the freedom to travel the world with allegiance to
not one country. They are to make money for Investors.

Sometimes, watch CEO's when they make speeches on C-Span.
Immeldt, GE frequently points this out as he explains he now
has a ratio of 40% in China and 60% jobs in US. His goal is
to reverse this in next decade. 60% China and 40% US/

He has no duty to anyone except the Investors in GE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. uhhh, just a snippet from Wikipedia on Milton Friedman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman

"His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Ronald Reagan in the US, Brian Mulroney in Canada, Roger Douglas in New Zealand, and (after 1989) in many Eastern European countries."

This guy was a guru to RONALD REAGAN. And PINOCHET. Yeah, this country already tried his ideas -- an they turned out to be an EPIC FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. the OP was entitled "Where We Went Wrong"
:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Okay, I'm an idiot. But even seeing this guy's name posted here
makes me crazy. We've had years of hearing about the *Chicago School of Milton Friedman* pushed by the neocons and I just see red when that name comes up.

My bad. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. it's okay donnachaidh
I have that same viseral response to Alan Greenscum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I feel the same way. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. this is Friedman unintentionally making the best case for abolishing the corporation
and replacing it with a co-op run by workers and customers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. His 'corporation' would include co-ops.
"That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school."

I'd also note that "income producing" is, ultimately, up to the customers. If most people will choose a $100 widget from a crappy company instead of a $200 widget from a more ethical company, that's their choice. Yes, their choice is short-term and based on just wanting stuff. Company's know that, as do politicians, and cater to it.

On the other hand, if you want to form a corporation that's a co-op, that's fine. The structure's flexible.



Quip: "Eleemosynary" seems to me to be underused. I like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Intellect;
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:37 PM by Uncle Joe
1. "The ability to reason, perceive or understand; ability to perceive relations, differences."

2. "Great mental ability; high intelligence."

3. "a. A mind or intelligence, especially a superior one; b. A person of intelligence; c. Minds or intelligent persons, collectively.

Intellectual;

1. "Of or done by the intellect."

2. "Appealing to the intellect."

3. "Requiring or using intelligence."

4. "Having or showing a high degree of intelligence; having superior mental powers."

Why would intelligent people want to "undermine the basis of a free society," as Freidmann put it? Don't intelligent people live in that same free society?

I believe Freidmann makes an inadvertent argument for full government funding of public television and radio. They should accept no corporate money, unless one believes a public good simply doesn't exist.

Furthermore if a corporation is an artificial person with only artificial responsibilities and no social obligation or responsibility, or even broad, long term social vision as Friedmann contends, they should have no social power with the ability to influence society or the publics government via lobbying.

He's wasn't French, but as Spiderman's Uncle Ben said "With great power comes great responsibility" and the corporations certainly have great power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Funny, huh? We turned over the country to amoral, artificial, immortal persons . . .
" . . . Dedicated to making as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society . . . " And then those amoral, artificial, immortal persons and their servants moved Heaven and Earth to change the "basic rules of the society" so that they could make more and more and more and more and MORE MONEY.

And in the end, this approach totally fucked things up.

Who could possibly have forseen such a thing?!?!?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. "milton friedman
was an asshole," as a colleague once put it

glad that institute of his in chi-town will be up and running soon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. IIRC they are also LEGALLY BOUND to put shareholders first
this is why "private health insurance" must, by definition and by law, do everything it can to cheat the insurees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC