Capitalism And Freedom Friedman

Look up the definition of business on google and one will get five immediate definitions. None of the definitions sound particularly warm or heartfelt in the way it describes business as an obligation or worry. One could say the definitions are “all work.” On the other hand, when one looks up the definition of social business, words like new, future, and sustainability are associated with it. According to Muhammad Yunus’ seven principles of Social Business, the number one objective of social business is to overcome societal problems (cite). This begs the question of whether or not free enterprise can be preserved while people are granted equality, capitalism can be maintained while poverty is alleviated, and whether or not business has a social
In his book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman often neglects to consider the influence that the civil society has on markets. In my opinion, this can lead to an oversimplification of the problems he addresses. For example, his view on the answer to inequality is that an open market will allow people to pursue their own enterprise. With the addition of persuasive chastising, Freidman believes that customs and common beliefs will change as people see the potential for greater monetary gain (109). This, simply put, would not work. Traditionally, it has not worked either, especially when customs and common beliefs do not allow for certain subgroups to pursue economic freedom. Muhammad Yunus has seen this first hand. In Bangladesh, the women are traditionally the poorest and the most shackled group (Carlin, “What sort of man makes millions”). Yunus started Grameen Bank, a bank that lends money based on trust and uses the models of social business to achieve success. The bank’s primary borrowers are women (Yunus 71), therefore, the efforts of Yunus have helped many women leave begging on the streets and given them an equal opportunity to create their own free enterprise (68). This new economic freedom has allowed these women to pay for a
The alleviation of poverty in terms of the redistribution of in income or welfare are often considered to be socialist ideals. Must a capitalist state be slightly socialist in order to give the poor that equal opportunity often promised in capitalist culture? Take, for example, the United States of America. There is much legislation on poverty, but little results. While poverty in this first world country is vastly different from poverty in the rest of the world, it still exists (Friedman 190). Milton Friedman proposes that the most useful help for the poor is cash. He suggests subsidies given to people based not upon age or occupation and instead based on the fact they are poor, but also believes that a program would reduce the incentive for people to help themselves (Friedman, 192). Yunus, on the other hand, has seen that, when given the money, the poor are more than willing to help pull themselves out of poverty (72). Similar to Friedman, cash is the main tool in the foundation of Yunus’ plans to help alleviate poverty. His loans provide this tool without collateral. In the United States, where Friedman argues that there is always some degree of political freedom for everyone, the microcredit structure Yunus developed has allowed a good number of people to find a more stable place within the system of competitive capitalism (186). The microcredit concept is especially effective when the people have a support group and work together to help