10 ms·
These sorts of statements always scare me a bit. First, businesses are still required to give maximum benefit to shareholders. Second, even if this was the go
by mauld 7y ago
These sorts of statements always scare me a bit. First, businesses are still required to give maximum benefit to shareholders.
Second, even if this was the goal of a business, it then leaves it up to businesses(boards?, CEOs?) to define things like "ethically", "important benefits", "diversity" etc. These aren't things you could get all people to agree on in the first place- hence the whole democracy thing we do. A lot easier to make these statements then turn them into policies.
Let businesses do what they do best - give them a set of constraints (laws) and let them maximize value. If they do "good" things as well, great, if not, fine. If we don't like the outcomes (environmental damage, inequality) change the rules to change the value equation.
- afthonos 7y agoGestures like this, sometimes even coupled withe genuine action, are what businesses do to avoid those explicit constraints being created. "Look, we're being reasonable, no need to force us to."
- tasty_freeze 7y ago> First, businesses are still required to give maximum benefit to shareholders. I hear this over and over. What statute demands this? You are using it this way, but I have many times heard terrible corporate behavior dismissed because they were simply following the law that they must maximize shareholder returns.