« Political Bias in the Judiciary: Does It Matter? | Main | Epstein on "Legal analogies and metaphors in a high-tech age" »

January 23, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I don't understand this blurb at all? Care to translate into English anyone?

"The feature that distinguishes corporate production of warm glow from other goods is that the corporation’s shareholders and workers are also its consumers. (Would you rather own or work for Google or Altria?) The key choices for the consumers of warm glow are whether to purchase from corporations or their competitors, and whether to do this via ownership, employment or product purchase."

I'm fascinated by corporate charity but I have no idea wtf is being said here.

Those who can, do.

Todd Henderson


One wonders why someone with such disdain for academics spends time visiting and commenting on a blog hosted by academics. Your behavior belies your insults. I'd be happy to explain the very straightforward points made by Professor Malani in the blurb and the talk (did you listen to it?), but why should I when you consistently resort to name calling?


You guys should do a post about the recent University of Chicago Law School alum who won on Jeopardy last Thursday night!


Oh Todd,
I LOVE most academics! Doug Baird is my hero. Decent, down to earth. Martha? Smartest person I've ever met. I even appreciate the intellectual henchmen of the corporate ruling class, so long as they are saying something meaningful. I love the life of the mind. I'm a theory junkie. Now if someone is full of sh*t and just participating in the latest academic fad using the latest inaccesible faddish language talking about issues that have little to do with actually making the world a better place or are completely divorced from reality, I'm probably not hold them in very high regard. A lot of academics are like that, if you haven't noticed, especially in the humanities and social "sciences."

Anyway, I'd love to understand what was being said here, I just don't have time to do a whole podcast, or even check my spelling. So feel free to translate, but if you are too busy justifying the current distribution of wealth, I understand.

Kimball Corson

Much corporate philanthopy, in my view, is an aspect of public relations and is mainly public image defining. McDonald's is a good example. Purchasing "warm glow" is too general. Specific types of attention "glow" that fit into corporate marketing strategies are what is sought. Philanthorpy is a misnomer. Targeted image and public identity creation is the goal and it should be part of the corporation's advertising budget, tax deductible as such.


I think it goes deeper than that. Corporate charity is necessary and in their own self interest. The rich get richer and the poor poorer thanks to those corporations and the causes they pursue in Washington, and the Republicans who run many corporations have been very successful in the last 50 years of gutting government sponsored social welfare. Well, if you gut it too much, you're going to see revolt. Corporate sponsored privatized social welfare allows the working class to be bought off just enough to avoid revolt, and allows corporations to control that privatized social welfare and specifically target areas of charity that maximize their public relations bang for the buck.

It is a hell of a lot more profitable for corporations and those that control them to have low dividend tax rates, low income tax rates for the richest and low capital gains rates and give some money to charity, which of course they can then promote, often in television ads, than to have the government actually tax and regulate them in the first place and then provide those in needs with substantive government sponsored social welfare.

It allows the ruling class to provide just enough social welfare to maintain the status quo.

That being said, I'm still waiting for my L/E- speak translation.

The comments to this entry are closed.