1. What might be the objective of a museum? Of a firm? Do they have the same objective? Why or why not?
According to the text the function of a firm is “to purchase resources or inputs of labor services, capital, and raw materials in order to transform them into goods and services for sale” (Salvatore, 11). Ultimately, this is done to create a profit. The theory of the firm states that the objective of a firm is “to maximize the wealth or value of the firm” (Salvatore 12). A museum, on the other hand, is created to showcase historical pieces such as art of artifacts. None of it is done for the purpose of sale. However different the two organizations are, both seek to maximize the value of their respective agencies. A firm may do it to increase value for shareholders or to maximize profits. A museum may judge its value differently, perhaps in the pieces it acquires and their value as historical pieces rather than present day monetary value to sell.
5. According to Milton Friedman, “Business has only one social responsibility – to make profits (as long as it stays within the legal and moral rules of the game established by society). Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.” Explain why you agree or disagree with such a statement.
Milton Friedman’s idea that the only social responsibility of a business’ is to make profits is one that I agree with but also struggle with. As Milton Friedman said, businesses are created to make profit but I do not want that done to the detriment of the environment or safety of others. However, that is why laws are created and following them places competing corporations on equal footing. The issues really arise when laws have not yet been created or do not apply in other countries. For example, a chemical is banned for use in America for being harmful, but is not banned in other countries. To sell or not to sell? Ultimately, “the executive must be expected to act according to the best interests of the company or corporation and according to the stated goals of that company or corporation, that is, to maximise profits” (Liechty, 55). A company interested in maintaining customers will naturally forego selling a harmful material since it will cost a company in future sales from bad publicity.

Reviewing this original writers answer toward the question regarding the difference between a firm and a museum. I agree with the answer given however, there is also the ability of the museum judge its value by the access it allows to its acquisitions to the scientific community therefore allowing the museum to be a valued asset toward scientific discoveries.
This author feels the original poster misses Friedman’s guidance in his original theory the full quote indicates that Friedman was also concerned with businesses staying within the moral and legal tenants of the society in which they operate. Since the moral climate of society changes so should the moral direction a company takes. This continual adaptation would follow Friedman’s original theory. Further, Friedman was a proponent of what he described as ‘strategic philanthropy’. This philosophy permeates business today as part of many CSR programs (Lenkowsky, 2006).
It is also curious that the original poster make the statement that a company should not sell a product just because that product is banned in one country. It is important to remember that in this age of global corporations must act in the interests and within the moral and legal bounds of their local community and society. Therefore it is entirely likely a company may sell a product banned in one country that may not be banned anywhere else in the world. Just as the company would have to abide by local environmental law; is it fair or appropriate to expect the company to meet the most stringent environmental laws in the world at every site they may have or just the site that is affected by those laws. Rather than stating that a company should not sell a banned product; what would the answer be to the company selling a vaccine throughout the world that has not been approved by the FDA? Lacking approval of a federal agency is in effect a ban on the product.

References
Lenkowsky, L. (2006, December 7). Milton Friedman Was Right About Philanthropy After All. Chronicle of Philanthropy. p. 48.