Got a blog tip? Contact us
« This Month in New York City Critical Mass OR How Much Does It Cost the City to Run One of Those Police Copters All Night? | Main | Does watching TV make you stupid? »
When satire becomes redundant
On the heels of Ted Nugent's Yes Men-like performance at the NRA convention, the idea that you can mock capitalism by pretending to channel the essence of its most aggresive practitioners takes another hit. In this interview between CNBC's Larry Kudlow and Steven Milloy of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the notion that corporations have any responsibility to something larger than themselves is treated with the same disdain that people usually reserve for terrorism or the designated hitter.
KUDLOW: Yeah, listen, so corporate social responsibility, social investing and then, of course, this whole idea of stakeholders--businesses aren't run for stakeholders, which are left-wing community activists. Businesses are run for shareholders, aren't they?
Mr. MILLOY: That's absolutely true. And we are here to say that the Free Enterprise Action Fund is here to remind corporate managements that their business is business. Their business is not caving in to anti-business activists. They gotta keep their eye on that ball. We want to be able to support corporate--as investors, we want to be able to support corporate managers who are fighting the good fight and fighting anti-business activists. And for corporate managers who are caving in to anti-business activists, we're gonna come down on 'em like a ton of bricks.
That's right, Mr. Manager. Destroy a Nigerian tribal community. Use Chinese slave labor. Set up a foreign subsidiary to work in countries that finance terrorism. If you show the slightest bit of concern for your fellow man, we will punish you!
Not content to merely espouse amoral management, Kudlow and Milloy get into such a froth about "liberal activism" that they completely lose all perspective:
KUDLOW: One of your anecdotes in the paper--this is unbelievable to me--the Rainforest Action Network decides to crusade against the loan policies of JP Morgan; they want to give more money to Third World countries, more money to environmentalists, I suppose. Now the Rainforest Network hoodwinked a bunch of seven-year-old grammar-school kids from Fairfield County, Connecticut, to go down there and allegedly march. Now this to me is a new low and is really kind of a form of child abuse. But anyway, tell us the story.
Mr. MILLOY: Well, we call it ideological child abuse. Yes, the Rainforest Action Network took second-graders out of a public school, transported 'em downtown to Manhattan so that they could protest JP Morgan. And the reason they picked the second-graders from Fairfield, Connecticut, is that's--'cause--where the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, William Harrison, lives. That's one of the most scurrilous things. It's, as Terry Corcoran of the National Post called it, ideological child abuse.
I wonder if they consider what Nestle does child abuse. Or Wal-Mart? Or the international textile and mining industries? But who has the time to worry about such things?
Not when the children of Fairfield are in such peril.
(via Metafilter)
Posted by Charles Star on 04/30/2005 | Permalink
Comments
I guess it's not surprising, given that Milloy has also created a cottege industry predicated on assigning the status of "Junk Science" (http://www.junkscience.com/) on anything that his corporate masters find objectionable.
I tangled with him about 15 years ago when he made the statement that the banning of DDT was one of the worst things that has ever happened to manking (precise': Banning DDT allowed malarial mosquitos to kill zillions of people; counterargument: Mosquitos were becoming immune to DDT, therefore the environmental costs outweighed the benefits). I note that he's still flogging away on that poor horse.
Posted by: Dean C. | May 2, 2005 12:24:54 PM
Charles,
It is true Corporations should not be run for 'stakeholders'. There is no way to tell if they are doing a good job. They are only good at making a profit. They should stick to that.
On the other hand, they should also be limited to only one line of pre-approved chartered activity for a limited period of time. They should be required to return all their profit to shareholders or pay taxes on it at the same rate as those shareholders.
Finally, Corporations must obey the law. If they want the same rights as a person, they should also be subject to the death penalty just like the MBAs and Lawyers that came up with that idea!
Posted by: jed | May 2, 2005 12:34:47 PM
Hey Jed. I don't dispute that corporations have an obligation to make a profit. They also have an obligation to be citizens of the world. They have no more obligation to pillage and plunder for the sake of shareholders than any citizen does to feed his or her family.
Too often people treat a corporation as an independent entity rather than as a series of man-made decisions.
Posted by: Charles | May 2, 2005 12:47:59 PM
Through a bizarre interpretation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, corporations have the status of human beings. Actually, they have better status that mere humans. The 14th Amendment was supposed to give rights to the newly-freed slaves, and instead it's been abused to give super-rights to abstract entities.
Posted by: Paul | May 2, 2005 2:51:06 PM
Thanks Paul, though I know about the corporation=person jurisprudence. I was shocked to recently hear that Santa Clara County, the original "corporate personhood" case, didn't hold any such thing, even if subsequent courts actually did.
Posted by: Charles | May 2, 2005 3:18:26 PM
I think it's really entertaining to see these conservative economic activists try to discredit liberal economic activists using the same or opposite tactics. It kind of reminds me of the religious right (aka, GOP) rhetorical spin on "activist judges", used for the clear intent of foisting conservative activists on the judiciary and public.
BTW, I asked the Free Enterprise Action Fund, if they believe only in the rights and protection of shareholders, what they would do if Rainforest Action Network bought 50.1% of their shares -- if management would support RAN's model of shareholder action. No response yet.
Did anyone see in The Corporation book when author Mark Ackbar (sp?) interviewed Milton Friedman, he asked him his opinion of the Socially Responsible Business movement. His reaction was the ironic philosophy that supports the Free Enterprise Action Fund (check out their "about" link in the site): 'I support the use of social responsibility PR if it increases profits, but I can't support "social responsibility" if it's sincere, since that would be contrary to the principle of shareholder first' (last and only!). It's unfortunate someone like John Stossel isn't courageous enought to report on this 'controversy' -- he would so easily shoot himself in the foot.
Posted by: Rich | May 2, 2005 4:55:23 PM
