3 ms·

> pointing out that this one is based on the thoughts of a blatant racist Actually this is a pretty weak point. We have plenty of historical examples where a t

by dvt 1y ago

> pointing out that this one is based on the thoughts of a blatant racist Actually this is a pretty weak point. We have plenty of historical examples where a terrible person came up with a brilliant idea. So Friedman being racist or not (he was categorically not, Zitron is being unfair here) is kind of a non-issue. The philosophical problem is that favoring shareholder value above moral value or social value (or whatever you want to call it: the betterment of society; or Socrates' "flourishing" [εὐδαιμονία]) just doesn't seem to have any positive externalities. "Line go up," sure, but what does that actually do? "Line go up" teleology is trivially a dead end moral philosophy. In fact, if history is much of a teacher, any economic teleology seems to be pretty morally bankrupt—from concrete jungle capitalism to Bolshevik communism to bartering. I'm extrapolating, but here, I do agree with Ed.

lazide 1y ago
If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? The person who is good at consistently making the value/number go up and to the right on your money; or the one that gives vague ‘social good’ reasons why they aren’t? Especially if the ‘social good’ stuff is often vague and non-concrete? The world is a much different place from when Socrates was around.
- dvt 1y ago
  > If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? This has nothing to do with the broader point of drafting policies that further social flourishing (there's disagreements as to what this means, of course) as opposed to drafting policies that further "line go up." In fact, I'd argue that the latter is meaningless without a foundational underpinning (we see this in imploding hyper-inflated economies). In other words, who cares if I have a zillion Funbucks if the country is falling apart?
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Friedman is arguing that it isn't the job of professional manager to use other peoples' money to set social goals. He argues that society broadly should establish social norms and that government should regulate negative externalizes like pollution. He was never saying just do what the fuck ever you can to flip a buck. The article quoted by Edward Zitron is Friedman responding to Nixon trying to shame companies into not raising prices during an inflationary period.
  - lazide 1y ago
    The issue here is that as an individual, you’re not actually going to decide fundamental policy matters. At a certain scale, regardless of what you personally choose (unless most others in the country do exactly the same thing you do), the country is going to either ‘fall apart’ or not regardless. Think of it from an election perspective - no matter how hard you voted for anyone but Trump last election in the US, Trump still got elected. But, you can choose if you’ll have more money or not at the end, depending on which company you choose to invest in. So for instance, regardless of how you voted, practically, it would have still been a good idea to invest in some of the companies which benefit from Trump being in office, eh? Yes, this does lead to larger scale problems when everyone does the same math. But at the same time, the actual math is the same for everyone, eh? Money may be the root of all evil, but how much you have also decides if you’re going to be eating cat food in retirement, or have gourmet home cooked meals eh? Monks may sleep better at night, but that is a trade off few others are able to make.
- drcongo 1y ago
  I invest on social impact, so option b?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
drcongo 1y ago
He may not be racist racist, but he's most definitely an absolute piece of shit - Ed should maybe have focussed more on all his other shitty attributes.

by dvt 1y ago

lazide 1y ago

If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? The person who is good at consistently making the value/number go up and to the right on your money; or the one that gives vague ‘social good’ reasons why they aren’t? Especially if the ‘social good’ stuff is often vague and non-concrete? The world is a much different place from when Socrates was around.

dvt 1y ago
> If you were trying to plan for retirement; and had a specific number you were trying to hit, who are you going to give your money to? This has nothing to do with the broader point of drafting policies that further social flourishing (there's disagreements as to what this means, of course) as opposed to drafting policies that further "line go up." In fact, I'd argue that the latter is meaningless without a foundational underpinning (we see this in imploding hyper-inflated economies). In other words, who cares if I have a zillion Funbucks if the country is falling apart?
- ch4s3 1y ago
  Friedman is arguing that it isn't the job of professional manager to use other peoples' money to set social goals. He argues that society broadly should establish social norms and that government should regulate negative externalizes like pollution. He was never saying just do what the fuck ever you can to flip a buck. The article quoted by Edward Zitron is Friedman responding to Nixon trying to shame companies into not raising prices during an inflationary period.
- lazide 1y ago
  The issue here is that as an individual, you’re not actually going to decide fundamental policy matters. At a certain scale, regardless of what you personally choose (unless most others in the country do exactly the same thing you do), the country is going to either ‘fall apart’ or not regardless. Think of it from an election perspective - no matter how hard you voted for anyone but Trump last election in the US, Trump still got elected. But, you can choose if you’ll have more money or not at the end, depending on which company you choose to invest in. So for instance, regardless of how you voted, practically, it would have still been a good idea to invest in some of the companies which benefit from Trump being in office, eh? Yes, this does lead to larger scale problems when everyone does the same math. But at the same time, the actual math is the same for everyone, eh? Money may be the root of all evil, but how much you have also decides if you’re going to be eating cat food in retirement, or have gourmet home cooked meals eh? Monks may sleep better at night, but that is a trade off few others are able to make.
drcongo 1y ago
I invest on social impact, so option b?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

drcongo 1y ago

He may not be racist racist, but he's most definitely an absolute piece of shit - Ed should maybe have focussed more on all his other shitty attributes.