Jeff, There are two arguments that mitigate against the Friedmann pov. One using 1970 economics and one using 2007 economics.
The "morality" of maximizing profits is based on the idea that markets do certain things efficiently and so promoting the freedom of business people, entrepreneurs and corporations creates a productive win-win situation where everyone benefits and freedom for business (and maybe for everyone else, thought that is a much harder argument to sustain). If the market transactions don't make an optimal use of economic/social resources then the whole argument becomes questionable (except for libertarians who believe that any exercise of governmental power is inherently problematic - not exactly a widely shared belief though one shared by the editors of Reason). So is "the market" efficient? 1970 answer. Yes, but not when there is market failure. I.e. Not in the case where monopoly or externalities. Something that has been recognized for a long time (since the 80's anyway) is that even markets that are not technically monopolies still act like monopolies, i.e. they keep there prices higher than if there was a truly competitive situation. This is called oligopoly, and many, many market in the economy appear to have price behavior that appears oligopolistic. I could explain why, but the point is that it happens. 2007 answer. Some nobel prize winning economists have argued and their view are pretty mainstream, even if debated, that the availability (or rather the lack of availability) of information robs consumers of the ability to push the market through price competition to its ideal efficiency. The so-called information assymmetry economist argue that this problem of not enough information is the rule rather than the exception. Beyond the point of whether the markets are efficient, maximizing profits in the real world means corporations lobby and constantly try to change the rules of the game in their favor. They try to change laws about finance, taxes, regulation etc. They actually like to make markets less competitive when they hold a dominant position in them. The also compete not through prices or even through quality but through marketing and advertising (which to some extent is the information asymmetry raising its ugly head). And beyond that there is problem that managers have never, ever acted solely in the interests of owners but usually in their own interests as well, even when that involves an inordinate of risk in the long-term (whereas managers interests are notoriously short term). I think you could find intellectual honest, economically literate conservatives who would argue that Gates is a threat to free market and capitalism in general. -Paul Jeff Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is an excellent read on the subject. Tom, don't let the big words or conflicting interpretations of moral imperatives spook you. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html > -----Original Message----- > Bill Gates says it is his moral duty to overcharge customers and > transfer > the ill-gotten gains to social causes of his choosing. He urges other > CEOs to do the same. Do our FoBs support him on this? Or is this just > an > argument to make illegal monopolies legal? ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************ Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
