[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