Government Intervention Vs. Self Regulation

Because corporations are established to profit and shareholders invest money with expectations of a greater return, managers cannot be given a directive to be “socially responsible” without providing specific criteria of checks and balances to which needs to adhere. Therefore, it is imperative to the success of a corporation for managers to not act solely but rather to act within the policies of the shareholders.

Ethics in business addresses the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviours of business practises, and how these practices impact the employees, shareholders, the general public and the environment.

Many believe that business entities should have an ethical duty to be socially responsible, to work towards increasing its positive effects on society while decreasing its negative effects. Many organizations look for opportunities to be socially responsible while also creating shareholder wealth.

Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves” (Tanner 1). Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner, Chief Economist at Roosevelt Institute, best-selling author, and a professor at Columbia University explains the problems with the current economy in the United States in his book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy. He explains that even though the one percent of the United States population is living a prosperous life, the remaining ninety-nine percent are being hurt by this reality (Stiglitz 8). From this it can be concluded that the regulations currently being pressed upon the majority of the population are hurting more than benefitting.

Innovations in technology are altering the ability of the government to create a regulatory regime that targets individuals. Technology has outstripped the governments capacity to regulate things. It is too hard for the government to regulate things on the internet. Policymakers are pre-technology; the technology is alien to them. Initial run of porn had to do with mail, technology created the mail system, and mad it obsolete. People access porn through the internet. Courts realize they can not regulate very well but it is a small interest in comparison, child porn. Courts slowly retrenches from regulating speech that has to do with sex. Every time they have a chance to regulate they back up. Obscenity does not equal pornography anymore because the government has so much more regulation to focus on. Court realizes its ability to regulate speech is impossible.

Points expressed in both views may contradict one another; however, a reasonable compromise can be made. For example, "Protect Children from Targeted Advertising" soures The American Psycological Association repots that advertisements aimed at children exploit their uninformed decisions. On the other hand, "Self-regulation and Education - Not Legislation" states that the markets themselves, along with communities, can regulate the ethical qualities of advertisements. Can either work? I believe consolidating and reworking their arguments can result in a more beneficial plan.

Hey, Kayla, your discussion post is detailed and well researched. However, I disagree with that government intervention is necessary to control the rent in communities. In your post, you wrote "In Canada, the government intervenes a reasonable amount, especially compared to other countries around the world. Too much government intervention, if not done properly, can lead to the downfall of an economy, such as it did in Venezuela." I agree with that the Canadian government does interfere less when compared other government like the one you list. I think this because we live in a mixed market economy. If you look at other jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Luxembourg, you will find that they have a free market approach to price controls. As a

Corporations have been demonstrated to be the most efficient. However, efficiency in a corporation always comes at a cost. We may have freed corporations from constraints so that material goods can be met. With no ethical concerns on social consequences of their actions when it come to health affects, pollution and workers welfare, is something these corporations should be concerned about.

I believe the extent at which the United States Government is involved in its economy is the appropriate amount in which a government should control its nation’s economy. Its mixed, but nearly capitalist economy allows Americans to be successful. The United States government intervenes enough to give its citizens basic necessities by collecting taxes. By offering resources such as public education and healthcare, the United States government has potentially given every one of its citizens the opportunity to be successful. Granted, not every citizen will fully utilize these resources given to them for various reasons, but at least they were offered. Money as an incentive drives the American citizens and ultimately its economy to be successful.

Ethics is defined as what is right and what is wrong. Every business should behave ethically. The moral principles that guide the way a business behaves are business Ethics. Ethics are moral guidelines to people or to an organisation which govern good behaviour. So behaving ethically is doing what is morally right. Doing an ethical business may always be not profitable but it will be more beneficial to company and the people involved in company as well as the people who are getting influenced by the company. If a company is acting ethically then it is trying to differentiate between right and wrong and then chose the right decision for everyone. It is very easy it identify any unethical

Milton Friedman wrote in his famous 1970’s article in The New York Times Magazine, that “the one and only social responsibility of business, is to increase profits for shareholders.” Milton Friedman's view on business responsibility accentuates the importance of maximizing firm's value. He pointed that the “there is one and only one social responsibility of business –to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engaged in open and free completion without deception or fraud’’ and by taking on the burden of social cost, the business becomes less efficient (Milton Friedman, 1962).

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

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

Some business leaders are taking good moral decisions and the reason behind that idea is that the core part of their business strategy is to create mutual benefit for both wider society and business as well. The growing desire of top management is to find out ways to create mutual benefit for both the organizations and the stake holders but the public still believes that companies are greedy entities which make decisions only in their self-interest, even at the cost of greater public welfare. It is the utmost obligation of the companies to discern the social issues while making the decisions (Yashiro, Yoshida and Suzuki, no date; Godwin, 2006; Schwab, 1996; Godwin, 2008; Werhane, 1998; Werhane, 2002; Heath, 2008; Mehalik and Gorman, 2006).

Companies with extensive responsibilities even argue about the system in pursuing social responsibility of business. According to Ulrich Steger, the company should prioritize the shareholders’ incessant interest but they should also be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environmental goals that the public expects them to be. Without a doubt, companies’ primary goal is to earn a profit. Emphasizing on profitability affects the fundamental values in the company, its morality. Companies ignore the ethics just to earn a mountainous income. This often causes extensive repercussions in the companies.