If we can't ask them to be moral, could we keep corps small?

[vincenzo]

Site daisy chain:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x6602
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1139999

Milton Friedman says corporations shouldn't be moral. Could we keep them weak and small then? Perhaps, for retail: no chains, for media: no cross ownership at all. For wholesale and distributors could we limit the number of employees? For capital intensive industries, such as the automotive industry, could professional economists determine the proper size to ensure competition and the possibility of success?

The genius of capitalism is that the competition of an even playing field drives the lowering of prices, the improving of quality and the increase of productivity. The downfall of capitalism is that unrestrained competition leads to monopoly or cartel capitalism where the big dogs eat all the little dogs and in the end we have only the rabid gorgons such as Wallmart.

Any ideas?

[happyslug]

1. J&L Steel was a partnership till the 1930s

Jones and Laughlin (J&L) steel was one of the larger steel mills in he US in the early to mid 20th Century. At its height (the 1930s) it was STILL PARTNERSHIP not a corporation.

My point here is there are ways to organize and finance large undertakings WITHOUT resorting to incorporating.

[IrateCitizen]

2. Vincenzo, may I suggest you check out the following book?

The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy by William Greider. It addresses the question you seem to be raising here.

WRT Milton Friedman, Greider contrasts his attitude with the preachers of the "social gospel" during the Gilded Age. The reformers of the Gilded Age held the main complaint against the large trusts of the day that they were completely irresponsible toward the rest of society. In effect, they routinely violated the basic social norms which the individuals living in society felt compelled to follow lest society collapse.

Friedman came along afterward and actually said that this irresponsiblity on the part of corporations was somehow a GOOD thing. That's right -- he said that corporations did "good" when they operated in a completely irresponsible manner vis a vis societal norms.

Take a moment and contrast these two views. One says that business should be free to make a profit -- but should also be compelled to abide by basic societal norms. The other says that business should just do whatever the hell it wants, effectively reinforcing behavior that goes CONTRARY to the basic norms that hold society together.

Which side would you rather line up on?