3 ms·

This is a poorly researched piece that seems designed to drive a partisan wedge into the issue. > Actually, when you work, you already give to society, but tha

This is a poorly researched piece that seems designed to drive a partisan wedge into the issue. > Actually, when you work, you already give to society, but that is too complex for some to understand. Charitable giving is obviously in addition to whatever output is produced from one's work. It is also directed more purposefully towards altruistic aims than random consumption. > I did a little digging, and I’m not so sure they’re effective at all. ... they also supply supplements for vitamin A deficiency, though genetically modified “golden” rice already provides vitamin A more effectively. Does he really think that an organization devoted full-time to researching charities has somehow overlooked something basic found by a random WSJ columnist from a quick google search? > That’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted Future pandemics are inevitable, and there's no guarantee they won't be more severe than Covid-19. There's lots of room for criticism in the EA movement - in fact that theres an entire contest currently devoted to it (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8hvmvrgcxJJ2pYR4X/announcing-a-contest-ea-criticism-and-red-teaming https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8hvmvrgcxJJ2pYR4X/...), but this is a poor attempt.

frakkingcylons 4y ago
The WSJ opinion section is really poor in contrast to their regular news coverage.
mananaysiempre 4y ago
> This is a poorly researched piece that seems designed to drive a partisan wedge into the issue. >> Actually, when you work, you already give to society, but that is too complex for some to understand. Given the classic free-enterprise position[1] is exactly that “giving to society” should be accomplished through separate charitable organizations funded by business owners or employees, not by grafting secondary objectives onto unrelated businesses, I’m not sure which into which partisan divide it’s supposed to drive a wedge, exactly, in the WSJ of all places. (Yes, that position has pretty low-hanging caveats, but it also has a point.) [1] Friedman (1970), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Friedman often strikes me as a smart guy, so I'm glad he totally demolished his own point: > In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employe 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.
  - mananaysiempre 4y ago
    If you mean the contrast with the title, it doesn’t look to me like he demolished anything, more that the title is the hook more than the point. The body of the article makes a careful distinction between “social responsibility of business” [nonsensical per the argument as I read it], “social responsibility of a business” [dubiously meaningful, more of a category error—same one as “corporations are afforded human rights”, funnily enough], “social responsibility of a business executive” [as far as their employment is concerned, advancing the aims of the owners, generically profit], and “social responsibility of a business owner” [same as for any other natural person, might entail establishing or funding a business to advance their goals]. ETA: Anyhow, my point was not whether or to which extent I agree with Friedman’s headline or article, it was that the quoted sentence seems like a generic argument against charities, which is neither economic-progressive (“left”) nor WSJ’s traditional economic-liberal (“right”), it’s just bizarre.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > as far as their employment is concerned, advancing the aims of the owners, generically profit I quoted the bit where he added legal and moral qualifiers onto that profit motive for the owners. Which renders his clickbait headline and his now quaint sounding red-scare intro totally empty of meaning. The whole thing just disappears in a puff of logic. He even admits that himself. "Don't do what's best for society. Why not? Because that's bad for society" is a paradox that he points out himself, though apparently he thinks writing an Op-ed in the WSJ telling people they shouldn't do something doesn't count, which means it's not hypocrisy when he does it.

frakkingcylons 4y ago

The WSJ opinion section is really poor in contrast to their regular news coverage.

mananaysiempre 4y ago

> This is a poorly researched piece that seems designed to drive a partisan wedge into the issue. >> Actually, when you work, you already give to society, but that is too complex for some to understand. Given the classic free-enterprise position[1] is exactly that “giving to society” should be accomplished through separate charitable organizations funded by business owners or employees, not by grafting secondary objectives onto unrelated businesses, I’m not sure which into which partisan divide it’s supposed to drive a wedge, exactly, in the WSJ of all places. (Yes, that position has pretty low-hanging caveats, but it also has a point.) [1] Friedman (1970), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Friedman often strikes me as a smart guy, so I'm glad he totally demolished his own point: > In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employe 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.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  If you mean the contrast with the title, it doesn’t look to me like he demolished anything, more that the title is the hook more than the point. The body of the article makes a careful distinction between “social responsibility of business” [nonsensical per the argument as I read it], “social responsibility of a business” [dubiously meaningful, more of a category error—same one as “corporations are afforded human rights”, funnily enough], “social responsibility of a business executive” [as far as their employment is concerned, advancing the aims of the owners, generically profit], and “social responsibility of a business owner” [same as for any other natural person, might entail establishing or funding a business to advance their goals]. ETA: Anyhow, my point was not whether or to which extent I agree with Friedman’s headline or article, it was that the quoted sentence seems like a generic argument against charities, which is neither economic-progressive (“left”) nor WSJ’s traditional economic-liberal (“right”), it’s just bizarre.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > as far as their employment is concerned, advancing the aims of the owners, generically profit I quoted the bit where he added legal and moral qualifiers onto that profit motive for the owners. Which renders his clickbait headline and his now quaint sounding red-scare intro totally empty of meaning. The whole thing just disappears in a puff of logic. He even admits that himself. "Don't do what's best for society. Why not? Because that's bad for society" is a paradox that he points out himself, though apparently he thinks writing an Op-ed in the WSJ telling people they shouldn't do something doesn't count, which means it's not hypocrisy when he does it.