4 ms·

I find it amazing how much good companies will sacrifice for a good quarter or so of "growth". Great R&D can be unprofitable for a long time until it's suddenly

I find it amazing how much good companies will sacrifice for a good quarter or so of "growth". Great R&D can be unprofitable for a long time until it's suddenly Bell Labs. That doesn't happen without some infrastructure, but an accountant rocks up and suddenly the company is a husk, time and time again.

CreRecombinase 6y ago
Even Bell Labs wasn't suddenly Bell Labs though. Even when Bell Labs was "Bell Labs", was it ever profitable for those who were footing the bill (as opposed to society at large, which it obviously was)?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Bell labs was good precisely because I doubt it ever made anyone much money. Hmmmm.....
  - wwright 6y ago
    Someone could make some good money by explaining how this squares with the conventional wisdom that optimizing for profit also optimizes for the good of mankind.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      That's "conventional wisdom"? It sounds like a pretty implausible proposition to me.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      hahaha I (think I) see what you did there
- spamizbad 6y ago
  Wasn't Bell Labs funded by a tax/surcharge on people's phone bills? I believe there was some restrictions on commercializing its developments as well. It could do research, create things for internal use at AT&T, but not traditional product development.
Ididntdothis 6y ago
Almost nobody who has a say has any incentive to think long term. For a CEO the next few years are important, shareholders can jump ship anytime. It’s a total alienation of somebody’s actions from the long term consequences.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Most shareholders are in it for the long term. They can dump Boeing, but only by putting money into something they think will do better. They won't put the money in a mattress or such. Most shares belong to 401k retirement accounts of the middle class.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    401k owners generally have no say due to low number of shares. And most likely they are not in a position to make a judgement of the decision a management makes. Who is looking out for them? Not the CEO and I don’t think the board either. You need to have a lot of shares before you have an influence.
    - ryanwaggoner 6y ago
      You don’t need a vote to sell your shares and drive the stock price down, which executives absolutely do care about.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      ISS[0], Vanguard, and other fund families absolutely have massive say (powered by those 401k balances) over corporate conduct. [0] - https://www.issgovernance.com https://www.issgovernance.com
      - mopsi 6y ago
        Their corporate governance teams are surprisingly small. Vanguard has only something like 35 people overseeing thousands of companies and voting on hundreds of thousands proposals each year. As a result, some of that voting is running - literally - on autopilot, see https://www.issgovernance.com/solutions/proxy-voting-services/proxy-exchange/ https://www.issgovernance.com/solutions/proxy-voting-service... and https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/11/29/the-realities-of-robo-voting/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/11/29/the-realities-of-...

CreRecombinase 6y ago

Even Bell Labs wasn't suddenly Bell Labs though. Even when Bell Labs was "Bell Labs", was it ever profitable for those who were footing the bill (as opposed to society at large, which it obviously was)?

Ericson2314 6y ago
Bell labs was good precisely because I doubt it ever made anyone much money. Hmmmm.....
- wwright 6y ago
  Someone could make some good money by explaining how this squares with the conventional wisdom that optimizing for profit also optimizes for the good of mankind.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    That's "conventional wisdom"? It sounds like a pretty implausible proposition to me.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    hahaha I (think I) see what you did there
spamizbad 6y ago
Wasn't Bell Labs funded by a tax/surcharge on people's phone bills? I believe there was some restrictions on commercializing its developments as well. It could do research, create things for internal use at AT&T, but not traditional product development.

Ididntdothis 6y ago

Almost nobody who has a say has any incentive to think long term. For a CEO the next few years are important, shareholders can jump ship anytime. It’s a total alienation of somebody’s actions from the long term consequences.

bluGill 6y ago
Most shareholders are in it for the long term. They can dump Boeing, but only by putting money into something they think will do better. They won't put the money in a mattress or such. Most shares belong to 401k retirement accounts of the middle class.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  401k owners generally have no say due to low number of shares. And most likely they are not in a position to make a judgement of the decision a management makes. Who is looking out for them? Not the CEO and I don’t think the board either. You need to have a lot of shares before you have an influence.
  - ryanwaggoner 6y ago
    You don’t need a vote to sell your shares and drive the stock price down, which executives absolutely do care about.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    ISS[0], Vanguard, and other fund families absolutely have massive say (powered by those 401k balances) over corporate conduct. [0] - https://www.issgovernance.com https://www.issgovernance.com
    - mopsi 6y ago
      Their corporate governance teams are surprisingly small. Vanguard has only something like 35 people overseeing thousands of companies and voting on hundreds of thousands proposals each year. As a result, some of that voting is running - literally - on autopilot, see https://www.issgovernance.com/solutions/proxy-voting-services/proxy-exchange/ https://www.issgovernance.com/solutions/proxy-voting-service... and https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/11/29/the-realities-of-robo-voting/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/11/29/the-realities-of-...