Chaser Essay

First thing let us start with a little overview of what Milton Friedman exposed in his article. It seems that the whole point of his essay revolves around one basic statement which clearly says that the only social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long it stays within the rules of the game (Milton Friedman, the social responsibility of business is to increase profit).

What Friedman implies is that shareholders should only be concerned with maximizing profits and not be obligated to be “socially responsible.” In that case, the manager would only have one priority, to maximize profits. However, what if that manager determined that social endeavors is the best option to maximize profits? This would make the corporation socially responsible while still maintaining maximum profits. The argument presented by Friedman in this case is that while the manager is performing as expected by maximizing profits, this type of “social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.”

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

Subsequently, Denning may have misinterpreted Friedman’s main argument. The actual title of Friedman's article is "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". Denning hastily substituted the word "sole" for "social" and misinterpreted Friedman’s argument to be that that the sole purpose of the firm is to make money for shareholders. This is not true. The main issue Friedman was tackling was the social responsibility of business; the responsibility that it has to the society. In fact, the word “sole” was not mentioned even once in the

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our healthcare system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these prices must be examined.

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much, and rightfully so. Medication prices in the United States have been on a steady increase for decades, however, prices have been drastically increasing as of recent. Pharmaceutical companies have tried to justify these price increases due to the demand, the high cost of research, and the high costs of development and approval. Notwithstanding, the extent to which the prices have increased is not justifiable. Americans should be against these high medication prices and take action because pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of our health care system in order to capitalize from the sick. In order shed some light on this issue, we must examine the magnitude, scope, and consequences of these rises in price.

Background: Americans pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. Drug costs increased 12.6 percent last year, more than double the rise in overall medical costs. A new Kaiser Health poll shows that most Americans think prescription drug costs in this country are unreasonable, and that drug companies put profits before people.1 Take the example of albendazole which is broad spectrum anti-parasitic drug. In late 2010, the listed average wholesale price for albendazole was $5.92 per typical daily dose in the United States and less than $1 per typical daily dose overseas. By 2013, the listed typical daily dose price for USA market had increased to $119.58. Medicaid data show that spending on albendazole increased from less than $100,000 per year in 2008, when the average cost was $36.10 per prescription, to more than $7.5 million in 2013, when the average cost was $241.30 per prescription2. Albendazole is a very basic medicine but if we take the case of oncology medicines we are going to realize that oncology drugs have become synonymous with extremely high cost. The average cancer drug price for approximately 1 year of therapy was less than 10,000 per year in 2010 and had increased to $30,000 to $50,000 by 2005. In 2012, 12 of the 13 new drugs approved for cancer indications were priced above $100,000 per year of therapy. With typical out-of-pocket expenses of 20% to 30%, the financial burden would be $20,000 to 30,000 a year, nearly half of the average annual

Many have accused that Food and Drug Administration is not aggressively monitoring drugs prices, the FDA is in charge of regulating devices and drug production. Big Pharma spends billions of dollars annually on direct-to- consumer advertising which entitles manipulative strategies (4). The theory behind such good progress is the company attracts doctors, scientist, and other health related personnel’s. Medical research teams and doctors conduct extensive research with funds from Big Pharma. Even though many accuse Big Pharma for not following their mission statement it has not restricted them from purchasing their prescriptions medications. Big Pharma a company with many tactics and strategies, have been hiring former government workers whom have authoritative links to gain political influence. Currently, they have hired, 36 who worked for a member of Congress, 13 who worked for a federal agency, 2 who worked for the White House (4). With influenced members from Congress, they use their connection to reach their company goals. Unfortunately, U.S law permits drug manufacture companies to set prescriptions drugs prices without any restriction from the FDA. On the other hand, other countries set a limit on what companies can charge bases on the benefit of the drug (4). There are many hidden facts, which Big Pharma does not reveal; for example, the company spends double the amount of advertising then they do on research. Persuasion is the key to pharmaceutical industry, paying physicians/surgeons to incorporate their names on research articles, with the intent of getting published in

The prices in which the medication are set are necessary for research and development. Roy P. Vagelos, discusses about the problems regarding restricting pharmaceutical companies in the written source Are Prescription Drug Prices High?. For instance, it can reduce the profits to support research investments, since it costs at least $231 millions dollars in order to bring one new prescription medicine to the market and in a pharmaceutical company like Merck, there are at least 4500 researchers who work to develop products (Vagelos 1). In other words, it costs millions for researches to develop at least one new drug to present to the market and it also costs to pay researchers to help develop these new drugs. In addition, the article The Real Cost of “High Priced” Drugs,

Milton Friedman argues that persons may choose to undertake social responsibilities to their communities, churches, or nations, and devote their own incomes to causes that they deem morally worthy. But, he adds, if corporate executives attempt to take such social responsibilities or to direct the corporation’s profits to such personal causes, without approval from the shareholders, then:

Marketing and priorities of the pharmaceutical industry have been a dilemma for years. Scare- mongering has been increased on the importance of drugs (Shah, 2010). For example, executives at Mylan, a pharmaceutical company that owns Epipen, reportedly reaped in nearly three hundred million in compensation from 2011 to 2015 (Tuttle, 2016). Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, was accused of jacking up the price by 600%; her response was to blame the “broken health system”, Obamacare, and the rise of high- deductible health insurance plan. But should this be the case to do these to millions of families who can barely afford something that take thirty dollars to make and jack the price up to seven hundred dollars? We live in a greedy nation that is only there to take from one another. When people see this you can only think of how the pharmaceuticals being an “industry” it basically prioritizes that revenue comes before the needs and cures to the human society.

a. Milton Friedman’s philosophy of corporate responsibility is that “social matters are not the concern of business people and that these problems should be resolved by the unfettered workings of the free market system”. As harsh as it may sound, what he mean course to say was that a business has “to make as much money as possible while conforming to basic rules of society”. Meanwhile, Archie Carroll’s philosophy states that a business has “four kinds of social responsibilities” that a firm must address in their corporate social responsibility, which are economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic duties. Clearly they have two very different views. Friedman sees that a business’s ultimate goal is to generate profits, then comes the legal and ethical responsibilities it must fulfill. To Friedman, there is no need to be philanthropic because the firm’s job is only to make money for the economy, and it is the economy’s obligation to be philanthropic with the profits. Carroll agrees with Friedman that a company must be profitable, then be legal by obeying the law, and be ethical to avoid harm. However, Carroll believes it is also desired and in the best interests of the company to be philanthropic because it will “create a good corporate citizen”. Friedman has an economic view whereas Carroll has a social view. In my opinion, Archie Carroll’s philosophy on corporate social responsibility is more accurate. The social pyramid model he made to go with his views makes

Milton Friedman was an American economist, statistician and writer, who had a massive impact on the research agenda of the economics profession. His famous words “the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, Milton. 1970) led to many controversial debates on whether businesses should have ethics or if profit should be their main goal. Corporate social responsibility has many definitions, as its interpretation is quite loose, so I have chosen one that relates the most to this essay, given by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, in 2000: “Corporate social

For a long time now, there has been much debate over the social responsibility of a business. Friedman is one of the most influential