[edanm]

You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with.

'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.'

Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place.

"This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for."

That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it.

However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like).

Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH.

Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...

[rficcaglia]

Having studied economics and married to a PhD in behavioral science, I would urge you to separately consider the academic utility of the models of “most economists” from real life. Economic theories and models have a lot of value, just not applied to anything to do with real humans.

Better said here [0]: “Economics is plagued by the spurious exactness of mathematics. It neglects human behaviour and grovels before its paymasters in government and commerce. Its forecasting is as much use as Mystic Meg and the astrologers.”

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/econom...

[edanm]

So instead of refuting my actual points, you're telling me that it's better I completely ignore an entire academic discipline?

Maybe economics, like most science, doesn't get everything right, and there are certainly still tons open questions. But how far would such an attitude take me for other disciplines?

[rficcaglia]

Not ignore...apply very judiciously with careful consideration of the context and assumptions.

I don't refute your points. they may be valid. they may not. I merely urge reflection that actual human behavior that directly contradicts economic models.

As to Friedman: > "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

How's that going for the planet? While he dismisses social issues as "catchwords" we are now living with the very real repercussions.

>"The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. "

This implies that organization doesn't add any multiplier and is merely a sum of its funds. Even the market sees beyond that argument by valuing companies at multiples of its cash and assets. So he's ignoring or discounting the disproportionate impact that an organization can have far exceeding the sum of the individual actors.

> "civil servants ... must be elected through a political process.

I wonder what Mr. Friedman would think of the influence of corporate funds in the US political decision of late. Seems to blur his lines quite a bit.

>"the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes."

When I was 17 I read Atlas Shrugged, too, and thought every individual could succeed on their own actions and effort. Then I lived in reality.

EDIT: typos and formatting