Here are my responses to questions. If I had all the energy in the world, I’d refer you to passages in the reading. That would be the best way to study- find answers to questions you have in the text!!! Please ask any more questions in comments.
Come in for copies of any of the readings you don’t have, for whatever reason. Who doesn’t have the Holley? Isn’t it right here on the blog?
Entine
Is Entine against free media advertising? How would consumers be able to decide which companies are morally sound?
It is interesting to think about that first question! I don’t know! Here is how we could figure it. A lot of free advertising might come to a company that seems socially responsible because of hype. Would Gillette, a company he really likes, get much free advertising? If so, would it be for his standards for real social responsibility?
How can consumers decide what companies are morally sound? They will never know for sure, because companies are “a dysfunctional family writ large”, remember. But we should require ETHICAL AUDITING of companies. This would require outside agencies to come in and determine 1. Does The Company Comply With The Law?
2. Does The Company Have A Sense Of Propriety?
3. How Honestly Do Product Claims Match With Reality?
4. How Does The Company Treat Its Employees?
5. How Does The Company Handle Third-Party Ethics Issues?
6. How Charitable Is The Company?
7. How Does The Company React When Faced With Negative Disclosures?
Aristotle
Be sure you can summarize his view.
Mandeville
Yes, I have a hard time grappling with what his views on society are and why they determine what constitutes a thriving economy.
One student gave a great answer to the above question: “Greed is good”. People are motivated by desire which leads to buying which is good for the economy.
Also: Mandeville’s approach to morality is ironic. People are greedy and that’s why markets exist and flourish. In the case of the bees, strict cooperation spelled doom in the long run because a lack of competition, as Mandeville sees it, hinders progression.
Does Mandeville support greed, or is he merely observing?
A: He seems to be supportive, otherwise we would starve! Personally, I think he meant it a bit tongue-in-cheek, but his point about starving seems pretty serious.
What did he do wrong?
A: He was not an economist, so we can assume he left some things out of his “story”. I suggest he leaves out the need for manufacturing to begin to make ALL items more cheaply. I worried that he might have described an economy that could specialize and make luxury items, but not produce beets cheaply. My example was the islands of bead-traders. They were rapid consumers, rapid producers, specialized: yet still hungry.
Smith
Does he provide a social rationale for human behavior or no?
A: I don’t know what this means!
Some of you said you understood him from other classes. This worries me a bit because our reading is so simple that I wonder what you are importing. Take a look over what he says again, word by word. We just have those two short chapters. They are our sole source for an account of an “invisible hand”. He does not refer to the “invisible hand” in these passages (I have that on the handout) but this is the story. It’s just a story. It should require nothing fancy alongside it. If you can make the story simpler than I have, on the basis of what he says: do it! But we are taking the “invisible hand” story straight out of our reading from Smith. No more! (Ok, I added in mention of marginal utility. But you can take this out. I also used the term “economy of scale” but you can take this out, too.) See if you can sum up what is going on in our reading of Smith. Once you have: that is the invisible hand story you can use.
Are you clear on how to raise moral objections to the invisible hand story?
Take Smith’s explanation in those two chapters, and raise MORAL OBJECTIONS. What would worry you if those chapters are all someone was told about the market?
Here are some we discussed in class, from a fellow student doing the review (good job): The invisible hand is set up to encompass all companies as a whole and as a result no blame can be placed on a single company and if one company causes a major economic issue, all are affected because not one company can be targeted to zone in on and fix the problem. Therefore, companies can use the excuse that the invisible hand made them do it. Also, it is based upon self interest which encourages people to be on their worst behavior in regard to business activities in that anything goes, including illegal activities. This undermines Smith’s principles and twists it in a way he didn’t mean it to be taken.
Marx
Question: I’m still confused on why communism didn’t/wouldn’t work. Besides the pricing problem, what are other problems with communism?
Answer: For our purposes, I would focus on the pricing problem. The “invisible hand” story explains how individuals making choices we don’t know about or understand end up making a system more efficient for their freedom. Smart people did not anticipate this, when they pursued socialist organization of the economy.
Anticonsumerism
Questions: Can you give an example in class on a clear statement?
My only question is how is it possible to write a response to this question in which it would be impossible to disprove? Essentially I would take the pro-consumerist angle, but no matter what I say I think someone could come up with a way to disagree, no matter how good my argument. Any pro-Marxist would be able to find any argument against capitalism and my pro-consumerism stance…
Answer/s: A clear statement would be. “I take any concern about consumerism to be overblown. On an individual basis, perhaps some people suffer from their consumption, but I have an explanation for this that does not end up finding the market at fault. I also think concern for consumerism is, at bottom, elitism or envy. To prove this, let me take the case of “keeping up with the Jonses” that our author considers. She imagines people getting less and less from trying to keep up with TV figures’s fashions and possessions. I will take this same example and show that people are getting a real benefit from their imitation and use of knock-offs…” Do you guys see how this would go?
And please do not be put off by the fact that people will always disagree! They will. Try to cut them off by bringing up their objections to begin with. Present your view in response to their own claims (see how I am doing that above)? It’s a great way to acknowledge objections. A sophisticated answers acknowledges objections.
Milton Friedman and interview.
Everyone seems OK?
John Mackey and SEC.
Seems good! One good question was: what happened with the case? Oh, boy. You’ll be glad we didn’t cover this. Take a look: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/article/whole-foods-and-ftcs-litigation-far-from-checkout/
Anderson: not on final, but helpful.
Q: Her views were somewhat unclear to me. I understand that she addresses how social relationships can be tied into the way the market operates, but I am not quite sure how this really ties in…
She is great at explaining a failure to get something by buying it. Try buying love and you will be disappointed. Why? Love really, sorry for the cliché, can’t be bought. Try buying an education and you can’t (you have to work at it). Try buying respect, you can’t. On and on. She thinks the market works wonderfully for MARKET GOODS. But we make mistakes and take the wrong things to be MARKET GOODS. The best things in life are not MARKET GOODS.
Martin.
is there an ethical difference between internal and external whistleblowing?
A: He does not seem to address external whistleblowing (do you mean Julian Assange-like?) But it cannot be required, ethically.
Q: So should people whistleblow? What is the fine line?
A: He says “you cannot SAY whether people can whistleblow!” He says “There is no fine line! There is no way to figure this out on paper.” I love his view for these reasons. Do you see how he says these things?
Holley
I’m curious what type of question will be asked on this article. I understood it but I thought Holley was embarrassed by it? Is it still usable even though it was criticized?
Answer: Yes, we’re just taking it as it is. He gives us criteria for an ethical sale, and I’ll ask about them. I’ll ask for examples of them. I might not ever get to asking you to criticize him- but hopefully you’ll retain some of our class concerns anyway.
