5 ms·

Companies answer to their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employee's third. When they give a shit, it's in that order. They reap what we s

Companies answer to their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employee's third. When they give a shit, it's in that order. They reap what we sow.

zdragnar 4y ago
It has been that way for a long time, though
streblo 4y ago
Yes but ultimately they are answerable to an (often) diverse set of interests, which push them towards a maximum. State owned enterprises ala the USSR were answerable to far fewer interested parties.
- Clent 4y ago
  What are these 'interested parties' because that sounds like another way to say 'shared holders' -- There is base assumption in such a claim that more is better and that our current system is more optimal than some other system you've heard about. A curious perspective; fear of options. Emotion over logic.
- coliveira 4y ago
  The market is not "free" as they pretend to be. The US market is essentially the investment market, a small club of extremely powerful WallStreet companies that dominates the investment landscape. In this sense, it is very centrally controlled, if not by the government, but instead by a close elite of capital managers. A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. Instead, the US stock market is more like a cartel where there is a central group of intermediaries, which control money moves between producers (companies) and buyers (small/medium investors).
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      > No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops. Not really. A company that's big enough to be (even a regional) monopoly forces people to transact with them by virtue of being the only game in town. The question is whether this is a continuous gradient from "more free" to "less free" or more similar to a step function when a company reaches monopoly status.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        This is a big country and nobody has their feet nailed to the ground. Your local supermarket may be the only one in your village, but the next village is easily attainable. Something being more convenient doesn't make it a monopoly. I grew up in the Air Force. My mom would always shop at the base PX because it was cheaper, and sometimes it was a 30 minute drive away, passing store after store to get there. To make the drive worthwhile, she'd buy 2 weeks worth of groceries at a time.
        coliveira 4y ago
        Reality in America has shown that the same supermarkets that exist in my town also dominate the next town. I don't know what alternate reality you're living on.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I live in the US. Plenty of choice. Even driving 30 minutes like my mom did. I suppose if you live on the tundra in Alaska, it might be a bit farther, but you could always just shoot a bear and eat it. In Seattle, there are some neighborhoods without stores, but that is usually because the stores cannot handle the shoplifting anymore, and quit. It's still not far to another store outside those neighborhoods. You can even buy food from Amazon from your Lazy-Boy. Push a button, and food appears on your porch. If you have a really hard time finding food where you live, may I suggest: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qelMhlI6f_o https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qelMhlI6f_o
elcritch 4y ago
No, they're beholden to their corporate charter and board. Shareholders who own voting stock can usually vote on who sits on the board. The shareholder and stock price primacy myth is just that, a myth. Stock price is a part of a public companies responsibilities, but there are many other priorities and responsibilities a company's charter and board can set. Personally I only want to have stock in companies with a vision. Ultimately they tend to become the most valuable in terms of stock price too.

Companies answer to their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employee's third. When they give a shit, it's in that order. They reap what we sow.

zdragnar 4y ago

It has been that way for a long time, though

streblo 4y ago

Yes but ultimately they are answerable to an (often) diverse set of interests, which push them towards a maximum. State owned enterprises ala the USSR were answerable to far fewer interested parties.

Clent 4y ago
What are these 'interested parties' because that sounds like another way to say 'shared holders' -- There is base assumption in such a claim that more is better and that our current system is more optimal than some other system you've heard about. A curious perspective; fear of options. Emotion over logic.
coliveira 4y ago
The market is not "free" as they pretend to be. The US market is essentially the investment market, a small club of extremely powerful WallStreet companies that dominates the investment landscape. In this sense, it is very centrally controlled, if not by the government, but instead by a close elite of capital managers. A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. Instead, the US stock market is more like a cartel where there is a central group of intermediaries, which control money moves between producers (companies) and buyers (small/medium investors).
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > A free market would be something like a farmers market where producers sell directly to consumers. No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > No, a free market is when people are free to make transactions with whoever they please. Big companies are just as free market as mom & pops. Not really. A company that's big enough to be (even a regional) monopoly forces people to transact with them by virtue of being the only game in town. The question is whether this is a continuous gradient from "more free" to "less free" or more similar to a step function when a company reaches monopoly status.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      This is a big country and nobody has their feet nailed to the ground. Your local supermarket may be the only one in your village, but the next village is easily attainable. Something being more convenient doesn't make it a monopoly. I grew up in the Air Force. My mom would always shop at the base PX because it was cheaper, and sometimes it was a 30 minute drive away, passing store after store to get there. To make the drive worthwhile, she'd buy 2 weeks worth of groceries at a time.
      - coliveira 4y ago
        Reality in America has shown that the same supermarkets that exist in my town also dominate the next town. I don't know what alternate reality you're living on.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I live in the US. Plenty of choice. Even driving 30 minutes like my mom did. I suppose if you live on the tundra in Alaska, it might be a bit farther, but you could always just shoot a bear and eat it. In Seattle, there are some neighborhoods without stores, but that is usually because the stores cannot handle the shoplifting anymore, and quit. It's still not far to another store outside those neighborhoods. You can even buy food from Amazon from your Lazy-Boy. Push a button, and food appears on your porch. If you have a really hard time finding food where you live, may I suggest: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qelMhlI6f_o https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qelMhlI6f_o

elcritch 4y ago

No, they're beholden to their corporate charter and board. Shareholders who own voting stock can usually vote on who sits on the board. The shareholder and stock price primacy myth is just that, a myth. Stock price is a part of a public companies responsibilities, but there are many other priorities and responsibilities a company's charter and board can set. Personally I only want to have stock in companies with a vision. Ultimately they tend to become the most valuable in terms of stock price too.