tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post2656922748869182273..comments2024-03-28T04:16:11.729-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: The Problem with Corporate Social ResponsibilityKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-83534157287235528052015-04-15T22:09:19.177-07:002015-04-15T22:09:19.177-07:00Hello Frndz.....
Nice post!..good information,it i...Hello Frndz.....<br />Nice post!..good information,it is really helpful..it really impressed me alot and i just loved it.Thanks for posting such an informative content.<br /><br /><a href="http://vbcs.com.au" rel="nofollow">Owners Corporation Rules</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923433216366464769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-32435053154782764542015-03-26T21:33:54.605-07:002015-03-26T21:33:54.605-07:00Hello Frndz....
Great Information! Nice post,it is...Hello Frndz....<br />Great Information! Nice post,it is really very helpful for me.One of the few articles I’ve read today.I’m saying thanks<br /><br /><a href="http://vbcs.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Owners corporation rules</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923433216366464769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-84832156522422271092015-03-21T07:35:04.060-07:002015-03-21T07:35:04.060-07:00This: "They have no experience with the sort ...This: "They have no experience with the sort of ongoing, never-ceasing risk that is basically the source of equity holders' income. And they have little idea that they have accepted a discount to their income for avoiding it." is a very prescient observation.Prof Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16539902592080231165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-35972283893678209892015-03-20T21:11:12.964-07:002015-03-20T21:11:12.964-07:00Yes. The "stakeholder" view of the corp...Yes. The "stakeholder" view of the corporation always somehow means that shareholders make compromises for the other "stakeholders". Isn't it funny how that never applies to the other "stakeholders". Nobody in the business school adopts a "stakeholder" frame of view where the first order effect is that creditors and workers and community leaders chip in to pay the bills when a downturn hits.<br /><br />There is a deep human distaste for earning income by putting capital at risk. I don't know if we will ever overcome it. The fact that Milton Friedman, for a short time, created a window where we could have public conversations about it is a testament to the strength of his charisma. Of course, he was always taking in hostility from people.<br /><br />It's ironic that one of the great achievements of the modern, capitalist system is that the vast majority of incomes are relatively stable from week to week and month to month. A few generations ago, the farmer saw his near-term fortunes rise and fall with each rain. But, today because so many professionals have traded their risk away without explicitly realizing it, their only experience with risk is with idiosyncratic shocks, like unemployment. They have no experience with the sort of ongoing, never-ceasing risk that is basically the source of equity holders' income. And they have little idea that they have accepted a discount to their income for avoiding it.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-30255387958470053362015-03-20T11:37:26.208-07:002015-03-20T11:37:26.208-07:00Tom Woods recent podcast guest was great on CSR: h...Tom Woods recent podcast guest was great on CSR: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-360-corporate-social-responsibility-or-how-business-ethics-is-taught-these-days/Prof Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16539902592080231165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-14560288694426574352015-03-20T06:07:34.408-07:002015-03-20T06:07:34.408-07:00I agree with Mark Cancellieri, that the duty of ex...I agree with Mark Cancellieri, that the duty of executive managers is to act in the best interests of shareholders. The way I translate that to CSR, though, is by recognizing that most shareholders have diverging interests of what charities (for example) to support. So the best thing to do is maximize shareholder wealth, and return the money in the form of dividends and buybacks, so that shareholders can follow their own consciences. <br /><br />I'm engaged in some research on this angle from an investment point of view, and I can tell you that the firms that follow a "socially-responsible" investment pattern underperform the market significantly. I know it's not the same thing, but it's similar. <br /><br />Jeff<br /><br />P.S. In a business school, pretty much everyone (except for the economists and finance profs) buys into the "stakeholder" view of the corporation. It ain't pretty.Prof Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16539902592080231165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-11307081069723580382015-03-19T20:20:20.769-07:002015-03-19T20:20:20.769-07:00It's too easy to pretend that people who are c...It's too easy to pretend that people who are concerned about things like efficiency are heartless. Politics is hopeless. I just say thanks each day that we have had as functional a marketplace as we have for as long as we have. It's been a 300 year miracle. I don't see how humankind ever had the wherewithal to allow it.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-59498891951725774472015-03-19T16:03:30.178-07:002015-03-19T16:03:30.178-07:00Interesting, Schumpeter had an article about this ...Interesting, Schumpeter had an article about this today: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646742-old-debate-about-what-companies-are-has-been-revived-business-business<br /><br />On one issue where businesses are forced to pay for a social good (health insurance), it has led to one of the most expensive, inefficient systems on the planet. <br /><br />I'm fine letting business make the money. If we want to enact a welfare program, let's tax ourselves efficiently and do it. Not only is it inefficient to have businesses supporting social causes, it's downright creepy as well. Joe Leiderhttp://joeleider.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-37838543902156255402015-03-19T15:53:07.942-07:002015-03-19T15:53:07.942-07:00TravisV here.
Thanks, I laughed out loud at this!...TravisV here.<br /><br />Thanks, I laughed out loud at this!<br /><br />"When Friedman explains to Donahue that interstate trucking regulations were just lining the pockets of rentiers, Donahue looks like he's having visions of semi-trucks running headlong into one another at state borders. He just can't imagine this sorcery Friedman is preaching."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-86327345218495807762015-03-19T14:33:18.654-07:002015-03-19T14:33:18.654-07:00People like him will win the rhetorical battle. I...People like him will win the rhetorical battle. It's amazing that we've managed to maintain relatively functional markets for as long as we have. It does seem like the witch hunt mentality among the intelligentsia has gotten worse in the past decade. I'm hoping this is cyclical and the 90's was like the 50s & 60s. I'm hoping we are now in the late 70s. It was crazy time then too. Watch some of those old videos of Milton Friedman taking questions or talking to Phil Donahue. People were insane. When Friedman explains to Donahue that interstate trucking regulations were just lining the pockets of rentiers, Donahue looks like he's having visions of semi-trucks running headlong into one another at state borders. He just can't imagine this sorcery Friedman is preaching. Of course, it was Friedman's policy preference that removed the legislative rents, and the do-gooders who supported them. Same as it ever was. Like how FDR forced farmers to burn their crops and created cartels to fix prices, and was the working-man's hero when the pendulum swung to crazy-land the previous time. People are nuts. I just hope the pendulum is still tethered.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-77640703748594313402015-03-19T13:54:41.914-07:002015-03-19T13:54:41.914-07:00TravisV here.
Funny that this was just posted: &q...TravisV here.<br /><br />Funny that this was just posted: "He thinks it is time to expand the “narrow definitions of capitalism” that threaten the underpinnings of our society and develop a new model for corporate profit that includes justness and responsibility."<br /><br />http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-19/paul-tudor-jones-warns-disastrous-market-mania-will-end-revolution-taxes-or-warAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-10017869133672445482015-03-19T09:59:17.543-07:002015-03-19T09:59:17.543-07:00I think it's sort of a semantical error that F...I think it's sort of a semantical error that Friedman made. The way he describes it understates the level to which corporations overwhelmingly act under community norms in ways that don't have anything to do with profits. There is an unavoidable ongoing negotiation between employees, employers, and consumers regarding what is culturally important. The irony is that a public corporation, whose ownership is a reflection of the country itself, will much more reliably match those expectations than a closely held firm that isn't so tied to the Friedmanite notion of profit-maximization. It is no accident that the firms that have caused controversy have been closely held firms like Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-40041210909777887042015-03-19T04:31:00.591-07:002015-03-19T04:31:00.591-07:00Personally, I think that companies have a fiduciar...Personally, I think that companies have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interests of shareholders, but I think that where Friedman gets it wrong is in assuming that their *only* interest is profits. To the extent that shareholders *are* interested in "social responsibility," then it is not in the place of company executives to ignore those wishes.<br /><br />Where Friedman gets it right, however, is that companies don't have any "social responsibility" outside of their desire to act in the interests of shareholders.Mark Cancellierihttp://www.madcapitalist.com/noreply@blogger.com