NYTimes has a 50y retrospective on Milton Friedman's popularizing of shareholder primacy, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” with line-by-line commentary from smart folks.

I discuss the essay in my book; some thoughts. /1 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-doctrine-social-responsibility-of-business.html
A Free Market Manifesto That Changed the World, Reconsidered

Milton Friedman’s libertarian economics influenced presidents and inspired “greed is good.” So what did Friedman get right — and wrong? Today’s business leaders and economists weigh in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-doctrine-social-responsibility-of-business.html
They skip what I take to be the most interesting and aggressive part: that a majority of shareholders must not be allowed to vote to adopt "social responsibility."

So it's not really about who gets to make decisions, but about imposing a specific notion of what firms are. /2
Even a critical response here assumes shareholder primacy is historically dominant and "practical."

But as Berle and Means noted, for decades before the New Deal shareholders were shedding legal powers as it was impractical for them to execute it under industrial capitalism. /3
Even a critical response here assumes shareholder primacy is historically dominant and "practical."But as Berle and Means noted, for decades before the New Deal shareholders were shedding legal powers as it was impractical for them to execute it under industrial capitalism. /3
Even a critical response here assumes shareholder primacy is historically dominant and "practical."But as Berle and Means noted, for decades before the New Deal shareholders were shedding legal powers as it was impractical for them to execute it under industrial capitalism. /3
That shareholders were in retreat for 70 years on purely practical, everyday-evolutionary grounds, and that they were quickly remade on an ideological notion of freedom as property

makes the creation of shareholder primacy a perfect example of "roll-out neoliberalism" to use. /4
Last, not many engage it ( @oren_cass notably does) but the responsibility debate flows from a question-beg: whether shareholders "own" the firm and CEOs "work" for them. Both wrong.

Even in a book on decommodification as freedom you know I'm going to go there. (Pre-order!) /fin
You can follow @rortybomb.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.