3 ms·

It is reminiscent of the old story about an AI that is put in charge of optimizing widget production and ends up killing all life in its pursuit of raw material

by slg 6y ago

It is reminiscent of the old story about an AI that is put in charge of optimizing widget production and ends up killing all life in its pursuit of raw materials to build more widgets. Unrestricted capitalism is like an AI that is never taught that it shouldn't harm humans. It just keeps on vacuuming everything up that provides even the tiniest increase in marginal profit.

bleepblorp 6y ago
I'm not surprised this was downvoted. It is, however, inherently true. American corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder return. The entire public company system in the US is a paperclip maximizer that is designed to vacuum up every bit of economic value available on the face of the earth and give it to shareholders. With 80% of all US stock value owned by 10% of Americans[0], the emergent goal of the economy is to suck up every available cent and give it to people like Bezos and Zucker------. For people like Bezos and Zucker------, that's a good thing. For the rest of us? Not so much. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/perspective-on-the-stock-market-rally-80-of-stock-value-held-by-top-10/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/...
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  The first conception of a entity that is legally bound to continue growing in perpetuity, beyond the point of of prudence or reason, was, in retrospect, the final straw that put capitalism beyond redemption. It is quite literally a cancer on society, growing until it starves out the host.
- 3np 6y ago
  > American corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder return. This is a myth. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders#8177 https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    This summary, authored by a law professor, takes a different view: https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2...
    - mattkrause 6y ago
      That doesn’t seem like the conclusion of that article to me. For example, the author writes: “The court may hold forth on the primacy of shareholder interests, or may hold forth on the importance of socially responsible conduct, but ultimately it does not matter. Under either approach, directors who consider nonshareholder interests in making corporate decisions, like directors who do not, will be insulated from liability by the business judgment rule.[9]” This thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 has a lot of quotes from primary sources and legal analysis, and reaches a similar conclusion: directors can largely do as they please.
    - 3np 6y ago
      No, it doesn't. Acting in shareholders interest is not strictly equal to optimizing shareholder returns.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    That argument is :-o levels of bad. "If the legal obligation to maximize profit for shareholders existed we would have to develop a good definition of how is is to be measured." Translation of this bad argument: "Everyone uses words differently, so laws are impossible." We have almost a century of stockholder lawsuits, some successful, to show how ridiculous this argument is.
    - conistonwater 6y ago
      That's not the argument made in that post, AFAICT?
  - 6y ago

by slg 6y ago

bleepblorp 6y ago

I'm not surprised this was downvoted. It is, however, inherently true. American corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder return. The entire public company system in the US is a paperclip maximizer that is designed to vacuum up every bit of economic value available on the face of the earth and give it to shareholders. With 80% of all US stock value owned by 10% of Americans[0], the emergent goal of the economy is to suck up every available cent and give it to people like Bezos and Zucker------. For people like Bezos and Zucker------, that's a good thing. For the rest of us? Not so much. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/perspective-on-the-stock-market-rally-80-of-stock-value-held-by-top-10/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/...

LordDragonfang 6y ago
The first conception of a entity that is legally bound to continue growing in perpetuity, beyond the point of of prudence or reason, was, in retrospect, the final straw that put capitalism beyond redemption. It is quite literally a cancer on society, growing until it starves out the host.
3np 6y ago
> American corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder return. This is a myth. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders#8177 https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  This summary, authored by a law professor, takes a different view: https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2...
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    That doesn’t seem like the conclusion of that article to me. For example, the author writes: “The court may hold forth on the primacy of shareholder interests, or may hold forth on the importance of socially responsible conduct, but ultimately it does not matter. Under either approach, directors who consider nonshareholder interests in making corporate decisions, like directors who do not, will be insulated from liability by the business judgment rule.[9]” This thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 has a lot of quotes from primary sources and legal analysis, and reaches a similar conclusion: directors can largely do as they please.
  - 3np 6y ago
    No, it doesn't. Acting in shareholders interest is not strictly equal to optimizing shareholder returns.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  That argument is :-o levels of bad. "If the legal obligation to maximize profit for shareholders existed we would have to develop a good definition of how is is to be measured." Translation of this bad argument: "Everyone uses words differently, so laws are impossible." We have almost a century of stockholder lawsuits, some successful, to show how ridiculous this argument is.
  - conistonwater 6y ago
    That's not the argument made in that post, AFAICT?
- 6y ago