SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Sam Bostaph)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:27 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
[In reply to Dan Bromley's comments.] 
 
Dan, 
 
In all fairness to Friedman, you really ought to read the article before 
inferring what he means from the opening paragraph.  His argument concerns 
the specific responsibilities of corporate executives, not business in 
general, and is only peripherally about their responsibilities with respect 
to externalities.  The problem he is addressing is the ambiguity that 
usually accompanies the pronouncements that businessmen make about how they 
are fulfilling their "social responsibilities." 
 
For instance, two other paragraphs on the second page of the article read: 
 
"What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a 'social 
responsibility' in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not 
pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in 
the interest of his employers [the owners of the business]. For example, 
that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to 
contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a 
price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that 
he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is 
in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in 
order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. 
Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire 'hard-core' 
unemployed instead of better-qualified available workmen to contribute to 
the social objective of reducing poverty." 
 
"In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone 
else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as this actions in 
accord with his 'social responsibility' reduce returns to stockholders, he 
spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, 
he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages 
of some employees, he is spending their money." 
 
Sam Bostaph 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2