3 ms·

>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 bum

>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?

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?