[throwpoaster]

That's not what the Friedman Doctrine is, technically. It is that management should obey moral, ethical, and legal frameworks in the operation of the business for the benefit of its investors; and specifically NOT take actions which are outside of that narrow scope.

[Avicebron]

Does that include trying to influence moral, ethical, and legal frameworks to the benefit of the investors as well? Because if it does it is kind of a moot point.

[throwpoaster]

Yes, although as the Koch Brothers point out in their book: you have to play by the rules that exist, not the rules you want.

If you read, eg, Buffet, he makes the point that a manager donating to a political cause, whether the Heritage Foundation or, God forbid, something as far right as the SPLC, makes that donation with money that otherwise accrues to the shareholders. The manager therefore creates an agency problem, where he might pursue his own interests at the expense of the owners.

If they are aligned, the manager can retain the earnings and create a dividend for the owners, such that they can then make the donation directly. If they are not aligned with the owners, they are redistributing wealth.

I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it.

[Avicebron]

> I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it.

I'm pretty sure it's not just the Left team that advocates for bribes (sorry lobbying) to politicians. I don't think that's a very commonly held understanding of wealth redistribution either...but this argument you present isn't very coherent which is somewhat expected so I guess keep on keeping on..

[throwpoaster]

I value correctness in my argumentation, not popularity. What part of it don’t you understand?