In his radio address yesterday, the President declared:

Businesses have a responsibility, too.  If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That’s their obligation.

Wow - so that's how it works?  Businesses should start hiring people out of a feeling of obligation to President Obama?  A big "thank you" for health care, Dodd-Frank, stimulus, and the out of control EPA. 

And as for the nonsense about "investing in the future of this nation," it sounds like standard-issue hot air, but it smacks of a broader theory of "Corporate Social Responsibility," i.e., the idea that corporations should have legally-enforceable duties to their communities.  As Professor Stephen Bainbridge points out over here, "[t]he social obligation of business is to sustainably maximize long-term profits for shareholders. Nothing more. Nothing less."  Why, oh why, can the President not see things so clearly.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

"Obama's Contract On American Business"

Edited on Feb 6, 2011 at 7:04pm
raycon
Joined
Oct '10
RAYCON

Obama is ignorant of the reality of the marketplace.  If he genuinely believes that business exists to serve the imperatives of government, then he is nothing more than the next Stalin.  How can we rid ourselves of this evil.  Yeah, I know, the next election is our opportunity.  We can only hope that the ignorance and stupidity which gave us this ------------ can be undone.

One can only hope.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

 President Melonhead.


Joined
Jul '10
Your Grace

It's like Obama told the plumber, we need to spread the wealth around. If Corporate America doesn't get this yet, just wait until his second term.


Joined
May '10
Harlech

Businesses DO have a responsibility to their communities and to the nation. We do not expect businesses to do business with our enemies even if it would benefit their shareholders, for example. Whether this should be made a legal obligation is a different matter but conservatives should encourage socially responsible behavior regardless of legislation.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Tooth fairy economics.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Its good that Obama is seeding the market now for all his unemployed cronies in 2012. Yes You're Canned.


Joined
Nov '10
Elizabeth Dunn
Adam Freedman: Why, oh why, can the President not see things so clearly.

Because he is not a believer in the free market. He also is not, as many appear to believe, naive. This administration came into office with a marked agenda to handicap (if not dismantle) the capitalist system.


Joined
Dec '10
Nickolas
Adam Freedman: ... the idea that corporations should have legally-enforceable duties to their communities.  

Is a form of socialism.

In classical socialism the government owns the means of production for the purpose of achieving this goal, and others.

In modern democratic socialism the objective is for the government to control the means of production -- via statute, taxation, regulation, etc. -- for the purpose of achieving this goal, and others.


Joined
May '10
Steve MacDonald

This is silly pap geared towards an ignorant audience. It begins with an absurdity: "If we make America the best place to do business."

The administration has dedicated itself to create precisely the opposite, creating a toxic environment, especially for small business growth which depends on an open market. It has put in place smothering regulation that elevates the cost of doing business and favors those with sufficient size to cope. It picks winners and losers in all industries of its concern and bends the law to achieve it's purposes (Bankruptcy Law, Court orders, intimidation of Supreme Court Justices, voting rights etc). It strangles energy exploration and production, making energy cost increasingly globally uncompetitive. It makes export costs increase through the failure to approve trade agreements in our favor. It has fostered legislation of thousands of pages, which will take years of uncertainty to write the supporting regulation - at great cost.

In short, the administration has dedicated itself to creating a horrible enviroment for business. Using this base of lies to lay the foundation for business responsabilities is simply laughable - except that a lot of folks actually believe this idiocy.

Edited on Feb 7, 2011 at 3:42am
raycon
Joined
Oct '10
RAYCON
Harlech: Businesses DO have a responsibility to their communities and to the nation. We do not expect businesses to do business with our enemies even if it would benefit their shareholders, for example. Whether this should be made a legal obligation is a different matter but conservatives should encourage socially responsible behavior regardless of legislation. · Feb 6 at 7:44pm

Wrong!!!  People have obligations to the community:  act responsibly, respect others rights, be charitable, and mind your own business.  Businesses are there to produce the goods and services required or desired by us individual people.  They are collections of people who each, as individuals, have God given rights and responsibilities.  All the rest of this corporate responsibility claptrap is a politicians way of promoting self importance.  BTW, politicians also have the same rules as the rest of us commoners.  A few actually do perform their responsibilities, the rest seek to fulfill their obligations by screwing the responsible individuals who do mind their own business.


Joined
May '10
Steve MacDonald

Nickolas

Adam Freedman: ... the idea that corporations should have legally-enforceable duties to their communities.  

Is a form of socialism.

In classical socialism the government owns the means of production for the purpose of achieving this goal, and others.

In modern democratic socialism the objective is for the government to control the means of production -- via statute, taxation, regulation, etc. -- for the purpose of achieving this goal, and others. · Feb 6 at 8:58pm

I think it is to control more than just the means of production, but rather to control direction, strategy, methodology and in many cases, even pay. I don't see much if any difference between their policies and that of the National Socialists of the 1930s. Those models were the darlings of the left as well - until a few minor problems emerged. 


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In