That thinking seems to be much more prevalent among (for example) HN users than it actually is within the upper echelons of business.

All those Fortune 500 CEOs probably know it's wrong. Otherwise they'd be thinking twice before implementing "Corporate Social Responsibility" programs.

It's catnip to the intellectually lazy because it's completely unfalsifiable. Any action a company takes driven by anything but profit is dismissed as a PR move. Actions that aren't publicized but made it out anyway (since you wouldn't be discussing them otherwise) are dismissed as intentionally leaked.

That isn't to say that a narrow view of a company's stakeholders isn't a problem, perhaps even a pervasive one. But most threads I've come across on HN et al on the topic have elevated it to the status of a religion, where people are utterly convinced that it's not possible for a company to be anything but blindly profit-driven.

But can't it be argued that even social responsibility programs by companies are profit driven? Does it hurt or enhance Apple's image that they care about the disable, the environment or security against state actors? In the short term, likely not, but I weigh all of those things carefully when thinking about which phone I'm going to buy.

That's what I mean. It absolutely can be argued, but an unfalsifiable[1] claim is worse than useless. My complaint here is not against those who claim that seemingly-altruistic moves are sometimes profit-driven, but rather those who are convinced that _every_ action taken by a corporation is solely and only profit-driven. People who believe this (or talk like they do) are far, far more common than you'd think. As I said, as far as I can tell, it's likely due to the fact that trying to intuit the culture of a company through its actions over time is very difficult and it's far easier for lazy or small minds to decide that there are no actions beyond profit-seeking ever taken.

[1] For those who don't know precisely what I mean by this, it essentially means that there's literally no possible action the accused could take to prove otherwise.

Yes, indeed–but that's actually part of the argument against: it allows to define basically anything "profit-driven" and makes the idea meaningless.

The unfortunate part is where this supposed doctrine is used repeatedly to excuse companies' worst behaviours: "Amazon cannot install air conditioning in warehouses that have people fainting in the summer, because that would clearly cost money and Bezos would be criminally liable for leaving money on the table".

Of course it can be argued, but that doesn't make it correct.

You don't need to point to social responsibility programs to show that it's falsifiable.

Simply point to CEOs outrageous self-serving compensation and other perks, and numerous conflicts between active investors and management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_fight is a well known thing.

What are you talking about? I'm describing people who think that it's _literally impossible_ for a company as an entity to do anything but ultimately maximize shareholder value. Just because your rebuttal has the word "CEO" in it doesn't make it relevant to the conversation, and it certainly doesn't do anything to show that this phenomenon is universal (which, again, is the main and only thing we are talking about).

Friedman won the Nobel Prize for his work on the theory of the consumption function, and was well regarded for monetarism. It's a little bit of a stretch that a whole "school of thought" of corporate management stems from some guest op-ed he had in the NYTimes.

By the way, that is a fake Nobel Prize as it is not associated with the Nobel Foundation. It is actually the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in MEMORY of Alfred Nobel.

It has a decidedly political slant pushing for exclusively pro free-market policies and only awarding it those studies.

The very first paragraph of the linked article notes exactly this:

"No popular idea ever has a single origin. But the idea that the sole purpose of a firm is to make money for its shareholders got going in a major way with an article by Milton Friedman in the New York Times on September 13, 1970."

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of business owners throughout history have had a similar thought.

Not that there's any way to test that claim bet.

What's gone is corporate fear of labor. Of unions. Of strikes. Of your company being nationalized, as in the UK in the 1950s. Of communism winning economically, something business people worried about from 1930 to 1970. At last, oppression of workers is back!

For about forty years, capitalism had ideological competition. There was a competitor, and capitalism had to deliver a better standard of living to compete. With the competition defeated, capitalism has a monopoly, and acts like a monopolist.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever." - Orwell

Interesting thought that an ideology itself could suffer from the bloat/excess inherent in any monopoly. Thanks for sharing.

I imagine most business owners have a much more complex and nuanced understanding of their business, what it means to them, etc.

I mean, going off of Friedman's nonsense deriving a feeling of accomplishment from your business would be meaningless.

Friedman also introduced one of the least scientific ideas into economics.[1] Sciencism at it's best.

[1] https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/against...