Check out the 2016 conference about entrepreneurship at Swarthmore College.
When the conference was initiated in 2003, I think that the idea was to expose students to the world of business. Over the years, it seems to have degenerated into another exercise in expressing anti-market ideology. I wonder how the donors would feel about a conference devoted to debating the issue of
companies reconceiving their products and markets to address unmet social needs, redefining productivity in their value chain to build in environmental and societal gains, and working strategically to build local clusters of development within regions and communities to support the overall skills set and competitiveness
(and that is the pro-market side!)
I think it is pretty common for philantropists to throw money at colleges and universities to try to encourage positive thoughts toward business and markets. My guess is that in most cases the results backfire.
I believe that it is a worthwhile goal to seek to raise the status of capitalism and of profit-seeking enterprises. But I am not sure that the best way to address the anti-market bias on campus is to put your philanthropic dollars there.
When you want to break even or make a profit knowing you achieved the goal is pretty straight forward. How does one know they have achieved optimum social justice, environmentalism, etc.?
The objective for the faker is good public relations. That is straight-forwardly measurable, in principle.
The objective for the true believer is not actually “social justice” (however defined), environmentalism, etc.–as is observable from his failure to investigate quantitatively about results–but merely to feel good about himself; so he subjectively interrogates his own psyche.
Looking up the name sake of this conference, Jonathan R. Lax, he invented a surge protector, started a marketing firm and organized a mutual fund while at Swarthmore. He also was a founding member and on the board of the Philadelphia chapter of Act Up and started an annual guide listing the most up-to-date treatments for AIDS-related illness.
His AIDs activism suggested he would not be displeased with this conference associating entrepreneurship with nonprofit activities.
I disagree. You can be an activist and a philanthropist and still believe that businesses should be run for a profit and that students should be encouraged to be proud to enter business.
I strongly believe that the most powerful pro-(market) capitalism is based on peace.
Peaceful agreement AND peaceful disagreement means, in a capitalist market, buyers have the peaceful choices and make the decisions. Under socialism, the choices are not based on peace, they are based on force — and the powerful in society will be forcing those choices.
Crony capitalism is based on gov’t force helping choose winners by forcing others to be losers; much closer to socialism.
“(and that is the pro-market side!)”
Except you left out the following: “…companies can achieve greater profitability and sustainability whilst simultaneously creating social value; doing good business, that is also business for good.”
Remember, entrepreneurship as a sole proprietorship is ethically different from merely managing a corporation where you are working for stockholders. In the former, for instance, you can operate under Christian principles, while as a corporate CEO, these often have to be set aside between 9 and 5.