You guys remind me of the many domestic disputes I had to respond to. The only way to resolve the argument was to first separate the parties and then look for common ground. And try to do that without getting stabbed, shot or assaulted.

In a way, both of you are right. The only responsibility of business, corporations and executives is to increase profits for the shareholders. As long as it is done in open and free competition without cheating and fraud. And here is where the other side is right. Our current model does not resemble anything like free and open competition.

First off, government threw that baby out with the bath water when they bailed out companies/corporations and executives who chose to take great risk with the shareholders money and lost it. The bailout reinforced attitudes that greater risk than reason would imply can be taken because you could expect to be too big to fail.

Second, shareholders are now prevailing upon their employees, the executives to apply certain social responsibilities to their customers and employees /workers. To be sure, there are still shareholders amongst them that want to simply maximize their profit but stockholders are increasingly becoming socially aware of the needs of their customers. And to some extent it can be a smart strategy for a company to at least fein interest in the environment, wealth redistribution or social issues.

But today's stockholder is increasingly demanding that a balance be struck between the strict rule of maximizing profit and the acceptance of some social responsibility. An executive cannot act in a way to satisfy both views. A political resolution must evolve. The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box further when it allowed corporations to act as individual lobbyists. So to enjoy the benefits of individuality without incurring the social responsibilities of individuals is inconsistent with free and open competition.

Liberals are simply calling out the cheating and hypocracy of it all.