4 ms·

Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good

Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.

Freak_NL 9y ago
We would end up with a small section of middle class consumers who are aware of the privacy issues and its effects and willing to choose businesses based on merit as well as price. I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).
cratermoon 9y ago
> Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...
- pmiller2 9y ago
  Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company[0] established the principle in law almost 100 years ago. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    I like how anyone who actually reads the content of the article and checks the references can a) know how wrong it is to represent this case as a meaningful bit of law and b) find that it directly contradicts the assertions that it is a driving force. "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no? And from the same Wikipedia page: In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  Well, I wasn't speaking to codified law, as referenced in your linked article. However, perhaps I over-simplified a bit in the interest of brevity when I wrote "singular mission". Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction. Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.

Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.

Freak_NL 9y ago

We would end up with a small section of middle class consumers who are aware of the privacy issues and its effects and willing to choose businesses based on merit as well as price. I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).

cratermoon 9y ago

> Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders. That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

pmiller2 9y ago
Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company[0] established the principle in law almost 100 years ago. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- cratermoon 9y ago
  I like how anyone who actually reads the content of the article and checks the references can a) know how wrong it is to represent this case as a meaningful bit of law and b) find that it directly contradicts the assertions that it is a driving force. "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744
- mindcrime 9y ago
  That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no? And from the same Wikipedia page: In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole
unclebucknasty 9y ago
Well, I wasn't speaking to codified law, as referenced in your linked article. However, perhaps I over-simplified a bit in the interest of brevity when I wrote "singular mission". Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction. Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.