4 ms·

Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework

Every such event reminds me of that celebrated fraud of an academic who argued that corporations exist to maximize profit within the applicable legal framework and that it is how things should be. The fact that corporate entities actively shape the legal framework to suit narrow interests that frequently undermine collective welfware somehow escaped him. When intellectual dishonesty and amoral behavior reach such systemic levels society crosses boiling points

adlpz 4y ago
Very well said. I believe in the ideals of individual initiative and market economy as means to achieve a better world for everybody, but when externalities and systemic inefficiencies are ignored and frameworks to deal with them are shaped by the same entities that are supposed to be ruled by said frameworks, the whole system corrupts and devolves into a machine that only benefits the few, while keeping the facade of legitimacy, which makes it doubly dangerous.
r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
Is this an academic who is celebrated and is a fraud or an academic who was defrauded. The second would be deliciously ironic. The first alas could describe entire economics sub fields
- buzzy_hacker 4y ago
  I take it they are referring to Milton Friedman.
codekansas 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.
- katbyte 4y ago
  Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie playing the stock markets) Companies are not people and do not have rights.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    The US Surpreme court ruled they are people. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...
    - Drakim 4y ago
      The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of advantages like limited liability on top of the US Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as people, which means that corporations actually have more rights than regular people.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for the actions of another person, or held responsible for the debt of another person.
        anticensor 4y ago
        Limited liability of business companies is much stricter. Natural persons do not have an automatic protection against debts beyond one's own wealth.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      It was a normative statement I believe ("companies should not be people and should not have rights") rather than a factual one (I'm sure they're aware & that's why they felt compelled to make the declaration). English is sadly lacking in this regard, where you often get to make a strongly worded statement or an unambiguous statement, but it's very difficult to do both at the same time.
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Are you referencing Milton Friedman? In which case I completely agree.
adaml_623 4y ago
Really unclear comment. Who are you talking about
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- college_physics 4y ago
  its been revealed by other comments. it might be a bit unfair to single out any particular person as responsible for providing intellectual cover to a manifestly inaquate ideology. he is basically just the convenient reference for an entire school of thought. had he not existed somebody else would have had that role.
  - adaml_623 4y ago
    So you're refusing to name the "convenient reference for an entire school of thought"?? I guess I'll see if Google can enlighten me
js8 4y ago
But why have corporations at all then, and not, for instance, worker cooperatives?
butlerm 4y ago
There are many types of corporations beyond those organized for profit. Non-profit corporations typically have different governance structures. Both types are restricted to pursue the aims and purposes described in their articles of incorporation. Labor unions are a good example of a non-profit corporation for example, as are credit unions, and most charitable organizations. Friedman's point is not so easily dispensed with by calling him names. He is arguing that a corporation that is formed for the purpose of generating profits for its shareholders is most effective when it focuses on that and then the dividends and capital gains generated for the shareholders can more effectively be applied by them to charitable enterprises as they see fit. That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape and pillage the countryside, break any law, or behave in an objectively unethical manner. It merely means a corporation should pursue the aims for which it was formed and is legally restricted to, and especially not be hijacked to pursue interests that its members or shareholders would not support. The latter is basically a form of theft, although the loss of focus usually takes milder forms.
- college_physics 4y ago
  > That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape and pillage the countryside, break any law, or behave in an objectively unethical manner. The problem is that the laws that are relevant in this context are far from a static body. They are in constant flux as new behaviors, new knowledge and new technologies are adopted. This necessitates continous new rule making and new regulations that must be fit-for-purpose. Shareholder profit maximization under current systems means it is rational (and a very profitable project) to proactively capture the political system. There is no meaningful penalty and eliminating the downside or creating more upside is enormously valuable (in monetary terms). Instead of rule takers that must optimize profit within their designated sandbox, giant private entities become the unchallenged rule makers. This is not intrinsically and automatically evil. It becomes so whenever the monetary profit of a narrow set is grossly misaligned with the welfare of broader segments of society. Examples abound. As they keep piling up they undermine the legitimacy of the very system. Killing the golden goose of a well governed market democracy and opening the door for uglier versions of society.
abigail95 4y ago
There should be some rule against calling a Nobel prize winner a fraud, without a very convincing argument. Go away.
- mordae 4y ago
  Why? Nobel prize committee is not accountable to the global public.
- college_physics 4y ago
  > Go away. As your amoral ideology masquerading as science ruins society and the planet you will find increasingly more "unconvincing folks" annoying your pristine reasoning

adlpz 4y ago

Very well said. I believe in the ideals of individual initiative and market economy as means to achieve a better world for everybody, but when externalities and systemic inefficiencies are ignored and frameworks to deal with them are shaped by the same entities that are supposed to be ruled by said frameworks, the whole system corrupts and devolves into a machine that only benefits the few, while keeping the facade of legitimacy, which makes it doubly dangerous.

r_hoods_ghost 4y ago

Is this an academic who is celebrated and is a fraud or an academic who was defrauded. The second would be deliciously ironic. The first alas could describe entire economics sub fields

buzzy_hacker 4y ago
I take it they are referring to Milton Friedman.

codekansas 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand what the alternative is - should you pretend that corporations are not ruthless profit maximizers, and allow them to have undue sway over our legislative system all the same? It seems like the root of the problem is that we've let the institutions which are supposed to hold our politicians to account when they exhibit blatant corruption fall into disrepair.

katbyte 4y ago
Do not allow corporations to lobby and influence the law. Do no allow politicians to profit from changes to the law (ie playing the stock markets) Companies are not people and do not have rights.
- themitigating 4y ago
  The US Surpreme court ruled they are people. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...
  - Drakim 4y ago
    The funny thing is that corporations have a bunch of advantages like limited liability on top of the US Supreme court ruling them to have the same rights as people, which means that corporations actually have more rights than regular people.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      People also have limited liability. You can't be sued for the actions of another person, or held responsible for the debt of another person.
      - anticensor 4y ago
        Limited liability of business companies is much stricter. Natural persons do not have an automatic protection against debts beyond one's own wealth.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    It was a normative statement I believe ("companies should not be people and should not have rights") rather than a factual one (I'm sure they're aware & that's why they felt compelled to make the declaration). English is sadly lacking in this regard, where you often get to make a strongly worded statement or an unambiguous statement, but it's very difficult to do both at the same time.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago

Are you referencing Milton Friedman? In which case I completely agree.

adaml_623 4y ago

Really unclear comment. Who are you talking about

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
college_physics 4y ago
its been revealed by other comments. it might be a bit unfair to single out any particular person as responsible for providing intellectual cover to a manifestly inaquate ideology. he is basically just the convenient reference for an entire school of thought. had he not existed somebody else would have had that role.
- adaml_623 4y ago
  So you're refusing to name the "convenient reference for an entire school of thought"?? I guess I'll see if Google can enlighten me

js8 4y ago

But why have corporations at all then, and not, for instance, worker cooperatives?

butlerm 4y ago

There are many types of corporations beyond those organized for profit. Non-profit corporations typically have different governance structures. Both types are restricted to pursue the aims and purposes described in their articles of incorporation. Labor unions are a good example of a non-profit corporation for example, as are credit unions, and most charitable organizations. Friedman's point is not so easily dispensed with by calling him names. He is arguing that a corporation that is formed for the purpose of generating profits for its shareholders is most effective when it focuses on that and then the dividends and capital gains generated for the shareholders can more effectively be applied by them to charitable enterprises as they see fit. That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape and pillage the countryside, break any law, or behave in an objectively unethical manner. It merely means a corporation should pursue the aims for which it was formed and is legally restricted to, and especially not be hijacked to pursue interests that its members or shareholders would not support. The latter is basically a form of theft, although the loss of focus usually takes milder forms.

college_physics 4y ago
> That is not an excuse for a corporation to rape and pillage the countryside, break any law, or behave in an objectively unethical manner. The problem is that the laws that are relevant in this context are far from a static body. They are in constant flux as new behaviors, new knowledge and new technologies are adopted. This necessitates continous new rule making and new regulations that must be fit-for-purpose. Shareholder profit maximization under current systems means it is rational (and a very profitable project) to proactively capture the political system. There is no meaningful penalty and eliminating the downside or creating more upside is enormously valuable (in monetary terms). Instead of rule takers that must optimize profit within their designated sandbox, giant private entities become the unchallenged rule makers. This is not intrinsically and automatically evil. It becomes so whenever the monetary profit of a narrow set is grossly misaligned with the welfare of broader segments of society. Examples abound. As they keep piling up they undermine the legitimacy of the very system. Killing the golden goose of a well governed market democracy and opening the door for uglier versions of society.

abigail95 4y ago

There should be some rule against calling a Nobel prize winner a fraud, without a very convincing argument. Go away.

mordae 4y ago
Why? Nobel prize committee is not accountable to the global public.
college_physics 4y ago
> Go away. As your amoral ideology masquerading as science ruins society and the planet you will find increasingly more "unconvincing folks" annoying your pristine reasoning