Two-faced book

[Matthew Kruk]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/02/peter-foster-two-faced-book/

Peter Foster: Two-faced book
Peter Foster Feb 2, 2012 - 7:02 PM ET
While making billions, Zuckerberg claims higher purpose

One of the most pithy, oft-quoted, and misunderstood insights in economics is
Adam Smith's contention that, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher,
the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest."

Now imagine an initial public offering for a thoroughly modern food and beverage
company. CEO Butch Brubaker would begin by stressing the quintessential
benevolence of the enterprise and its firm commitment to corporate social
responsibility. He might note the role that meat and bread play - according to
the latest government-mandated nutrition charts - in a balanced and healthy
diet. He would no doubt write at length on the sustainability of the company's
NGO-certified farming and production facilities, and express firm commitment to
carbon neutrality. He would close by reminding customers to drink responsibly.

All printed on recycled paper (tick box to receive messages electronically).

Would such a statement reflect the increasingly enlightened approach of modern
business? Or might it more accurately be considered symptomatic of the pervasive
air of apologetic hypocrisy that, far from diverting criticism, stokes it?

Partly due to persistent anti-capitalist propaganda (much of it dispensed in
business schools), the latest generations of businessmen are easily persuaded
that they are - and must be - utterly different from the "Robber Barons" of the
past. When Google preaches, in its corporate philosophy, that, "You can make
money without doing evil," it is merely strengthening the media-cultivated
perception that business evil is rife.
Smith noted that businessmen - like all human beings - are often self-serving
hypocrites. His point was that free commercial markets turned self-interest into
public benefit. We can only serve ourselves by serving others. Meanwhile Smith
scoffed at those who would "trade for the public good."

Posturing obviously comes more easily to the search engine and Internet tycoons
because they can claim they are more virtuous than those who run wicked old
smokestack industries. Except, that is, when they are advertising their
products, which just happens to be how the new tykes make most of their money.
This brings us to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's letter in this week's IPO
filing.

Facebook is a market triumph, an idea made possible by computer and Internet
technology, driven to fruition by a single-minded genius, and backed by venture
capital. It is estimated that the offering will value the company at between
US$75-billion and US$100-billion, almost enough for a small European bailout.

In his letter, Mr. Zuckerberg, who stands to be worth up to US$28-billion,
claims that Facebook was "built to accomplish a social mission - to make the
world more open and connected." So forget all that stuff in the movie about it
being founded to rank the attractiveness of Harvard co-eds.

In fact, the company's potential lies not in the social network per se, but in
selling advertising targeted to its subscribers. It's telemarketing where you
make the call. Mr. Zuckerberg wants his social mission converts to press the
"like" button so they can "discover the best products and improve the quality
and efficiency of their lives."

This is less than sinister, although also arguably less honest than being a good
butcher. Mr. Zuckerberg has had his knuckles rapped several times for his
overeagerness to feed subscribers' private information to marketers.

Where it really gets murky is where he writes, "Over time, we expect governments
will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their
people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few."

This sounds frighteningly like something that might emerge from the World
Economic Forum, or perhaps Noam Chomsky. We have representative democracies for
a reason. They don't always work that well, but they are certainly preferable to
the rule of any NGO-stoked Occupy cybermob. And when young Mr. Z writes about
addressing "the large worldwide problems we face in job creation, education and
health care," it's obvious that he's been spending too much time with Bill
Gates.

Such problems can't be solved with the "like" button. They require knowledge and
wisdom, which all too often goes with recognizing that what people like
politically is not necessarily the route to that better world that supposedly
lies beyond "maximizing profits."

Business wealth accumulation is too often portrayed as shameful, an activity
that you need to justify. And so Mr. Zuckerberg tells us "We don't build
services to make money; we make money to build better services." As if this was
some startlingly new approach rather than the essential orientation of all
growing companies.
The problem is that we live in a society in which we are told that such
orientation needs to be imposed from outside.

In that regard, however, it's worth noting that while rattling on about higher
purpose and the voice of the people, Mr. Zuckerberg - as Yvan Allaire notes
elsewhere on this page - has cocked a snook at the meddlesome shibboleths of
modern corporate governance. He is keeping a firm grip on Facebook control via a
dual share structure. He will also be chairman and CEO.

Thus, while he is paying lip service to the meddlers, he is doing his best to
insulate himself from them. We knew he was a smart young man. Shame about the
bafflegab.