Within the paradigm of the neoclassical synthesis [1], economic rent exists only in the short term, and as such creating value for shareholders by and large coi

Within the paradigm of the neoclassical synthesis [1], economic rent exists only in the short term, and as such creating value for shareholders by and large coincides with adding value to the economy. Unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than that. However, economists have made big progress coming to grips with that complexity, and many proponents of small government and laissez-faire are actually acolytes of what James Kwack calls "Economism" [2], an adherence to Economics 101 that's simultaneously dogmatic, hugely selective, and pro business & anti regulation. "Real" economists (including the frequently maligned "The Economist" magazine) are quite in favour of sensible regulation, government intervention, and progressive policies, more so than corporate lackeys and the Republican caricature of conservatism. Lastly, that shareholder value maximisation should be the only goal of companies is a sensible result, yes, but only for a specific and narrow theoretical question (the principal-agent problem, embedded in a neoclassical framework). What the actual goal of actual corporations in the real world should be is up to us (subject to real world constraints, obviously). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics [2] https://economism.net https://economism.net