4 ms·

"Business ethics" means "keep the shareholders happy"? This explains so much...

tptacek 10y ago
No, that's not what he said. In fact, a pretty good rule of thumb regarding the principle of charity on message boards: if you have to write "X means Y? That explains so much.", there's a good chance you're being pointlessly uncharitable.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  Eh, if you say so. Determining "the shareholders" to be the ultimate authority, the fear of whose disapproval drives you to not make "bad" decisions (which, the comment elaborates, eventually means committing fraud to "juice the quarters numbers"; to whom are these numbers being eventually presented, to delight or disappointment?). But upon further reflection upon our interaction, you must be right. Thanks for sharing your experience.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, he was implying that the reaction of shareholders is an acid test of ethics: that if you can't even tell your shareholders about something iffy, it's very unlikely that it's ethical. But he didn't say or imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question.
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      >But he didn't [...] imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'. "Business ethics", at this level, revolves around the shareholders, and the comment telegraphs this: as you say, shareholder reaction is the acid test for appropriate behaviour. Nor, indeed, does the opinion of shareholders dispose of the question. Yet, it is fear of shareholder disapproval that drives both the cover-up of fraud (potential jailtime probably helps with this) and the instantiation of said fraud in order to keep numbers up in order to placate shareholders. But, again, you're right. I'll keep my original comment up, but I should have put ""Business ethics" is all about shareholders, eh? This explains so much...".
      - kolinko 10y ago
        >Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'." Check the thread history, he said exactly the opposite: > > > if you wouldn't feel comfortable getting on the phone and telling your share holders what you are doing then its probably wrong.
        justratsinacoat 10y ago
        > > >If you've ever been responsible for a Pnl unit, much less an entire company, then you'll understand the crushing pressure you are under to make numbers. Sooner or later you'll have to decide if committing outright fraud is worth it. > > >I'm guessing that the management had good intentions when they started out. And the fraud started small, just buy a few cases to juice the quarters numbers, and it slowly spirals out of control. Maybe you didn't finish reading it? Possibly the decision to "juice the quarters numbers" is something you'd be comfortable telling the shareholders? You'd better downvote to be safe. edit: dunno, apparently this is a personal attack. I'm sorry to all the people I've hurt; speculation about contextual framing is obviously inappropriate; I've obviously made up the above quoted text; it's not as if any comment's quotes were taken out of context, obviously; I am history's greatest monster
        tptacek 10y ago
        Please don't personally attack people who disagree with you on threads. Even when the attack is so silly people might think you must be joking, as is the case here.
        justratsinacoat 10y ago
        Eh, if you say I am personally attacking people who are disagreeing with me on threads, then I am. I don't see it, but who am I to disagree with you?
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12557163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12557163 and marked it off-topic.

No, that's not what he said. In fact, a pretty good rule of thumb regarding the principle of charity on message boards: if you have to write "X means Y? That explains so much.", there's a good chance you're being pointlessly uncharitable.

justratsinacoat 10y ago
Eh, if you say so. Determining "the shareholders" to be the ultimate authority, the fear of whose disapproval drives you to not make "bad" decisions (which, the comment elaborates, eventually means committing fraud to "juice the quarters numbers"; to whom are these numbers being eventually presented, to delight or disappointment?). But upon further reflection upon our interaction, you must be right. Thanks for sharing your experience.
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, he was implying that the reaction of shareholders is an acid test of ethics: that if you can't even tell your shareholders about something iffy, it's very unlikely that it's ethical. But he didn't say or imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    >But he didn't [...] imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'. "Business ethics", at this level, revolves around the shareholders, and the comment telegraphs this: as you say, shareholder reaction is the acid test for appropriate behaviour. Nor, indeed, does the opinion of shareholders dispose of the question. Yet, it is fear of shareholder disapproval that drives both the cover-up of fraud (potential jailtime probably helps with this) and the instantiation of said fraud in order to keep numbers up in order to placate shareholders. But, again, you're right. I'll keep my original comment up, but I should have put ""Business ethics" is all about shareholders, eh? This explains so much...".
    - kolinko 10y ago
      >Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'." Check the thread history, he said exactly the opposite: > > > if you wouldn't feel comfortable getting on the phone and telling your share holders what you are doing then its probably wrong.
      - justratsinacoat 10y ago
        > > >If you've ever been responsible for a Pnl unit, much less an entire company, then you'll understand the crushing pressure you are under to make numbers. Sooner or later you'll have to decide if committing outright fraud is worth it. > > >I'm guessing that the management had good intentions when they started out. And the fraud started small, just buy a few cases to juice the quarters numbers, and it slowly spirals out of control. Maybe you didn't finish reading it? Possibly the decision to "juice the quarters numbers" is something you'd be comfortable telling the shareholders? You'd better downvote to be safe. edit: dunno, apparently this is a personal attack. I'm sorry to all the people I've hurt; speculation about contextual framing is obviously inappropriate; I've obviously made up the above quoted text; it's not as if any comment's quotes were taken out of context, obviously; I am history's greatest monster
        tptacek 10y ago
        Please don't personally attack people who disagree with you on threads. Even when the attack is so silly people might think you must be joking, as is the case here.
        justratsinacoat 10y ago
        Eh, if you say I am personally attacking people who are disagreeing with me on threads, then I am. I don't see it, but who am I to disagree with you?

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12557163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12557163 and marked it off-topic.