Bryter profittidealet med den gyldne regel?

[diskoduck]

Et spennende studie på tillit og økonomi finner man i notatet "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?" av Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T. Regan

 

"These observations do not challenge the obvious importance of self-interest as a human motive. But they do suggest the need for a richer model of human behavior, one that explicitly recognizes that people who hold cooperative motives often come out ahead."

 

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/economics_frank/frank.html

[diskoduck]

Det beste forsøket på dette ble gjort av en svensk økonom med etternavn Lindahl. Ved å finne betalingsvilligheten for de enkelte offentlige godene hos alle individene, kan vi også sette en pris på godene, og derfor også kvantum produsert.

 

Ellers er det ikke sikkert at freeridere er noe særlig problem, i og med at det fort kan bli mer samfunnsøkonomisk effektivt å la de eksistere, enn å bruke masse krefter på å fjerne de.

Det har vel vært gjort forsøk på å privatisere brannvesen i USA? Har du noe kjennskap til det? I filmen "The Corporation" var det brukt som eksempel brannbiler som i enkelte tilfeller kjørte forbi brennende hus fordi eierene manglet en avtale med selskapet som leverte tjenestene.

 

Kritikk av filmen:

 

"The Economist review points out that the idea for an organization as a psychopathic entity originated with Max Weber, in regards to government bureaucracy. Also, the review points out that the film weighs heavily in favor of public ownership as a solution to the evils depicted, while failing to acknowledge the magnitude of evils committed by governments in the name of public ownership, such as those of the Communist party in the former USSR.

 

The Maoist Internationalist Movement, in their review criticizes the film for the opposite: for depicting the communist party in an unfavourable light, while adopting an anarchist approach favoring direct democracy and worker's councils without emphasizing the need for a centralized bureaucracy. The film, in their view "offers no realistic alternative to imperialism." and "it shares some of the strengths and downfalls" of Mark Achbar's film Manufacturing Consent, which celebrated the life of anarcho-syndicalist, linguist, and activist Noam Chomsky. In their view, "corporate power for profit [is] not the same as megabureaucracy without profit."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

Endret 20. november 2007 av Cauldron2

[diskoduck]

Milton Friedman om "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" (artikkel fra 1970: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libe...p-business.html

 

Link til prinsipal/agent problematikken som Friedman kommenterer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem :

 

"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. 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 in crease 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 "hardcore" 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 his actions in accord with his "social responsi­bility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is 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.

 

The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.

 

But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other. "

Endret 20. november 2007 av Cauldron2