3 ms·

Before the Friedman Doctrine[0] (that is, that a corporation's only responsibility was to its shareholders) was put forward in 1970, and generally accepted some

Before the Friedman Doctrine[0] (that is, that a corporation's only responsibility was to its shareholders) was put forward in 1970, and generally accepted sometime around the '80s, it had been held for centuries[1] that shareholder-owned corporations also had responsibilities to society and the general public, as well as to their industry and their employees. Yes, they had responsibilities to their shareholders, but those did not automatically override literally any other consideration. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine [1] The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was founded for the trading of shares in the first real publicly-traded joint-stock company, the Dutch East India Company, in 1602. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronext_Amsterdam

gottorf 3y ago
> it had been held for centuries[1] that shareholder-owned corporations also had responsibilities to society and the general public, as well as to their industry and their employees. For centuries[0], governments were very limited, and other organized institutions of human life, like churches and businesses, held duties to the public at large. Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US, for example, remained in the single digits for most of its history[1] (outside of wartime), with a big bump post-WW2, then another big bump in the 70s with the Great Society programs, leading up to the current figure of a little over a third of the economy[2]. For an even longer view, government spending in the UK from the late 1600s and onward hovered around 10% with the same wartime jumps[3] for centuries, until the two world wars and the permanent expansion of the welfare state, hanging on around 45% now. So, it's a very reasonable view to say that governments around the world started to take a much more sizable role in such "responsibilities" to society, and crowded out private efforts in those arenas. In effect, redistributive taxes are supposed to take place of those previously responsible. [0]: Millennia, really; for most of civilized human existence. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/short-history... [2]: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/... [3]: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8265/CBP-8265.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
- Karellen 3y ago
  Those aren't totally unreasonable points, but I feel like they're somewhat undercut by: a) the people who advocate most strongly for the Friedman Doctrine (maximising shareholder value at all costs) also seem to be the people who most want to abolish (or prevent) government-provided safety nets, like state pensions, or universal healthcare, or public education, or UBI. It doesn't seem like it's a "Well, so long as we have these valuable strong public institutions, we might as well see how taking the reigns off private investment turns out" type situation, as much as it is a "I got mine, fuck you" libertarian class-warfare fantasy. b) the idea that the public programs we have are expansive and comprehensive enough to have "crowded out private efforts in those areas" feels like a stretch to me.

gottorf 3y ago

> it had been held for centuries[1] that shareholder-owned corporations also had responsibilities to society and the general public, as well as to their industry and their employees. For centuries[0], governments were very limited, and other organized institutions of human life, like churches and businesses, held duties to the public at large. Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US, for example, remained in the single digits for most of its history[1] (outside of wartime), with a big bump post-WW2, then another big bump in the 70s with the Great Society programs, leading up to the current figure of a little over a third of the economy[2]. For an even longer view, government spending in the UK from the late 1600s and onward hovered around 10% with the same wartime jumps[3] for centuries, until the two world wars and the permanent expansion of the welfare state, hanging on around 45% now. So, it's a very reasonable view to say that governments around the world started to take a much more sizable role in such "responsibilities" to society, and crowded out private efforts in those arenas. In effect, redistributive taxes are supposed to take place of those previously responsible. [0]: Millennia, really; for most of civilized human existence. [1]: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/short-history... [2]: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/... [3]: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8265/CBP-8265.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...

Karellen 3y ago
Those aren't totally unreasonable points, but I feel like they're somewhat undercut by: a) the people who advocate most strongly for the Friedman Doctrine (maximising shareholder value at all costs) also seem to be the people who most want to abolish (or prevent) government-provided safety nets, like state pensions, or universal healthcare, or public education, or UBI. It doesn't seem like it's a "Well, so long as we have these valuable strong public institutions, we might as well see how taking the reigns off private investment turns out" type situation, as much as it is a "I got mine, fuck you" libertarian class-warfare fantasy. b) the idea that the public programs we have are expansive and comprehensive enough to have "crowded out private efforts in those areas" feels like a stretch to me.