Friedman’s Principle, 50 Years Later
https://promarket.org/2020/09/01/fri...0-years-later/
The Case For A Second Airline Bailout
https://viewfromthewing.com/the-case...rline-bailout/
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
Eccieuser, First, I don't actually know that much about Friedman. I've read a couple of his essays, but never one of his books, but did find out enough about him to develop a man crush. I emphatically never wanted to bang him, like I wanted to bang Margaret Thatcher when I was a little tyke, but I believe he's got it right. In the future if you want to call on someone about economic theory LustyLad is a better bet.
However, I shall comment anyway.
From your first link:
"Friedman makes clear that corporations have the social responsibility to play within the rules of the game, “which is to say, engage in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” Thus, Friedman believes that companies have not just a legal, but also a social responsibility to not collude, deceive, or defraud."
And,
"Friedman would not object to the goals contained in the 2019 Business Roundtable Report, from “delivering value to our customers” to “investing in our employees,” from “dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers” to “supporting the communities in which we work,”
The best system is where you have owner (shareholder) control of companies, and government provides reasonable, logical, efficient regulation, so they don't for example pollute the environment or defraud consumers. Also workers should be allowed to decide to organize unions (or not organize unions) and IMHO minimum wages make sense too.
This system of private ownership and control has produced tremendous prosperity in our world. Looking at the alternatives, state and worker control just don't measure up. Look at the economies of the USSR, eastern European countries, and China before they adopted capitalism, which were based on a combination of worker and state control. Compare state owned enterprises today (many Chinese companies, Petrobras, Pemex, etc.) to their competitors in the private sector. They're often inefficient and big money burners. You don't see ejidos and Kibbutz's (agricultural workers collectives in Mexico and Israel respectively) dominating agri-industry the way private businesses do.
I don't like Sanders' and Warren's proposals btw to enforce partial collectivization of private businesses, which was mentioned in your link. Sanders would transfer 20% ownership to workers in any public company, and any private company with over $100 million revenues or $100 million in assets. And require that 45% of board members be appointed by employees. This would represent expropriation of assets, would reduce wages, hurt economic growth, and basically put us 20% of the way towards where China and the USSR used to be.
As to your second link, if the government allowed the airlines to go into Chapter 11 and wipe out the investments of the shareholders, bondholders and banks, I don't think I'd have a problem with that. Airlines go bankrupt all the time, and investors should know and be prepared for that. The downside would be that well run companies with primo quality employees like Southwest that didn't have their debt taken out through bankruptcy would be at a disadvantage.
A little off the topic, but I feel pretty comfortable flying, with my N95 mask and goggles. A lot of people don't though, and that's a large part of why the airlines are suffering. One thing that would help would be requiring better quality masks while flying than the one layer cotton ones a lot of people wear. And if the bozos who nurse their drinks through the entire flights so they don't have to wear their masks and the other bozos who wear their masks below their noses would just stop.
As to support for airline workers who would be laid off or are laid off and can't find other work which is mentioned in the article, yeah, I guess the government should do something to help. It wouldn't have to do as much if not for the aforementioned bozos.
