3 ms·

Is it really illegal to not maximize profit? I suppose we have capitalism to thank for that, where companies like PG&E can cut corners on maintenance and yet th

Is it really illegal to not maximize profit? I suppose we have capitalism to thank for that, where companies like PG&E can cut corners on maintenance and yet the C-level executives get to take home millions in bonuses. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, you know? Or perhaps I'm just naïve and everyone should be out for themselves, the community/society be damned.

pc86 5y ago
The "illegal" thing they're referring to is fiduciary responsibility. The board and officers of a public corporation have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders. The question then becomes what horizon is "in the best interest" of the shareholders.
- pixelatedindex 5y ago
  What happens when the best interest of the shareholders actively harm the public or the community? I used PG&E as an example but telecom companies have accepted government grants to improve their infrastructure but they end up not doing any of it. Our government doesn’t seem to care about these things either, as PG&E continues to not face any consequences and I can’t take my business elsewhere as there are no other energy companies. I rent so I don’t have the option of going off the grid either. My parent comment got downvoted but I don’t know why - just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it’s grounds for downvoting, as I’m only trying to facilitate a discussion. I think some regulations and enforcement is sorely lacking in these areas.
  - pc86 5y ago
    I think you'd have a hard time as a shareholder arguing in court that an executive should have broken the law in order to get you a higher return. Unrelated: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pc86 5y ago

The "illegal" thing they're referring to is fiduciary responsibility. The board and officers of a public corporation have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders. The question then becomes what horizon is "in the best interest" of the shareholders.

pixelatedindex 5y ago
What happens when the best interest of the shareholders actively harm the public or the community? I used PG&E as an example but telecom companies have accepted government grants to improve their infrastructure but they end up not doing any of it. Our government doesn’t seem to care about these things either, as PG&E continues to not face any consequences and I can’t take my business elsewhere as there are no other energy companies. I rent so I don’t have the option of going off the grid either. My parent comment got downvoted but I don’t know why - just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it’s grounds for downvoting, as I’m only trying to facilitate a discussion. I think some regulations and enforcement is sorely lacking in these areas.
- pc86 5y ago
  I think you'd have a hard time as a shareholder arguing in court that an executive should have broken the law in order to get you a higher return. Unrelated: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html