'cost free and practical steps,' Name one. You can't because as Milton Friedman said,'There are no free lunches' "What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a 'social responsibility' in his capacity as businessman?" asked Friedman in his 1970 article."... ""The difficulty of exercising 'social responsibility' illustrates, of course, 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. They can do good -- but only at their own expense.".. We know better now. For example, we understand that ignoring environmental and social issues can be bad for business. Companies that pollute their local communities risk poisoning their customers. Ignoring the state of the local school system risks depleting the pool of qualified workers. Abusing workers risks higher turnover and training costs, not to mention greater difficulty attracting the most qualified candidates.<quoted text>
Yes, there certainly is - and was. I've been screaming the loudest for at least the past 3 decades that our health care system is a big friggin' joke.
The health care industry is raking everyone over the frikkin' coals by abusing health care insurance as a flow of money and a personal cash cow.
And no one should be denied basic health care needs in this country - especially this country.
Unfortunately, when logic and reason finally emerged to LOWER THE COSTS of health care by cost free and practical steps, the Democrats loaded up the Obamacare crap machine and it's going to start flinging everywhere as soon as they turn on the fan in January.
Got your tarp ready?
It's never that simple, of course. In a globalized world, companies are free to exploit or pollute a local community, then move on to the next place. Unfettered markets and exploitation-friendly tax schemes reward companies for acting in their own interests in the name of economic growth and competitiveness. So, Friedman's philosophy still reigns supreme.
Friedman's philosophy is far from universally shared, even in the business community. In 1979, for example, Quaker Oats president Kenneth Mason, writing in Business Week, declared Friedman's profits-are-everything philosophy "a dreary and demeaning view of the role of business and business leaders in our society." Wrote Mason: "Making a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life; life's purpose, one would hope, is somewhat broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit."
Mason went on:
"The moral imperative all of us share in this world is that of getting the best return we can on whatever assets we are privileged to employ. What American business leaders too often forget is that this means all the assets employed -- not just the financial assets but also the brains employed, the labor employed, the materials employed, and the land, air, and water employed." Check this out: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005373....