5 ms·

Principles are pretty important to some people, too.

by rlt 4y ago

selcuka 4y ago
Companies are not people. The CEO might have principles, but he cannot apply his own principles to the company. The only principle for a company is to maximise profit within the legal restrictions.
- chrisdbanks 4y ago
  Depends on the company. Conscious Capitalism and the Infinite Game are great books on why that's not the best approach.
- ChrisKnott 4y ago
  This comment sounds clever but makes no sense. The CEO can and must apply his principles to the company if he wants to consider himself moral under his own code. Just think it through; is he morally bound to actively pump out lies and propaganda if that increases profits?
  - theodric 4y ago
    Either you make money in China until the Chinese clone your tech and undercut you, or you don't make that money and they eventually clone and undercut anyway. Might as well enjoy the boost for a few months. I don't like that we're self-censoring in the West in a way that furthers the ends and whims of authoritarian regimes, but hey, it's only business...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > you make money in China until the Chinese clone your tech and undercut you, or you don't make that money and they eventually clone and undercut anyway Or you stand by something and innovate, while using Beijing trying to clone your tech as reason for Congress giving you an unfair advantage. Holz has chosen his side. I’m now in favour of unfairly advantaging his competition.
      - theodric 4y ago
        Quite. And that, too, is only business ;-)
  - selcuka 4y ago
    > is he morally bound to actively pump out lies and propaganda if that increases profits? That's why I said "within legal restrictions". Ethics is not something defined for companies, even though we are led to believe that it is. It's for people. He could resign on his personal beliefs, or get fired if he can't sustain the growth, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the next CEO will probably do it.
- elihu 4y ago
  That's one theory. There's a competing theory that corporations have obligations to shareholders, customers, employees, and the community in which they operate. And as a practical matter, corporations can usually get away "doing the right thing" if they really want to, as it is good for the company's reputation in the long run, and therefore at least theoretically good for shareholders.
- vidarh 4y ago
  While this may be true in a general sense in that most companies have bylaws that does not set out another purpose, and that in theory shareholders could go after a board, and so indirectly a CEO, that does not seek to maximise profit, this is overly simplistic. The CEO is beholden to the directions of the board. The board has wide latitude to act within the rather wide remit of acting within the best interests of the shareholders (as a group, not individual shareholders). It's generally difficult to go after a board for setting direction that does not outright maximise profit other than by simply voting them out as long as there's some reasoning to justify why it is beneficial to the mission of the company to do something. That might e.g. be to ensure the reputation of the company. So as long as the CEO acts within what the board wants of them, and as long as the board maintains the trust of a majority of shareholders and aren't outright and blatantly violating the corporate bylaws (which can also specify other priorities than just profit), they can - and often do - decide that other things than profit matters. As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him. But the company certainly has principles in the form of its bylaws and the AGM and boards interpretation of them. The just might not be nice ones.
  - ElFitz 4y ago
    What board? Midjourney has no investors. No shareholders. He’s only beholden to himself. And proud of it.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Midjourney is an incorporated company. It has a board and at least one shareholder. Whether or not they're all the same person is irrelevant to the point made, which is that this annoying notion people keep bringing up when a CEO makes a choice that they're somehow inherently required to do what maximises profit is false.
      - ElFitz 4y ago
        > As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him. You made a general point. I agree with your general point. That last statement seemed to me to be about Midjourney specifically. In which case, because of Midjourney’s peculiar situation for this kind of company, it would have been inaccurate. And even if said statement wasn’t about Midjourney specifically, considering the subject at hand, pointing out it’s peculiar situation seemed relevant. But again, I totally agree that no, even though it’s often expected of them, CEOs aren’t inherently required to maximise profit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Principles are pretty important to some people, too.

by rlt 4y ago

Principles are pretty important to some people, too.

Companies are not people. The CEO might have principles, but he cannot apply his own principles to the company. The only principle for a company is to maximise profit within the legal restrictions.

chrisdbanks 4y ago
Depends on the company. Conscious Capitalism and the Infinite Game are great books on why that's not the best approach.
ChrisKnott 4y ago
This comment sounds clever but makes no sense. The CEO can and must apply his principles to the company if he wants to consider himself moral under his own code. Just think it through; is he morally bound to actively pump out lies and propaganda if that increases profits?
- theodric 4y ago
  Either you make money in China until the Chinese clone your tech and undercut you, or you don't make that money and they eventually clone and undercut anyway. Might as well enjoy the boost for a few months. I don't like that we're self-censoring in the West in a way that furthers the ends and whims of authoritarian regimes, but hey, it's only business...
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you make money in China until the Chinese clone your tech and undercut you, or you don't make that money and they eventually clone and undercut anyway Or you stand by something and innovate, while using Beijing trying to clone your tech as reason for Congress giving you an unfair advantage. Holz has chosen his side. I’m now in favour of unfairly advantaging his competition.
    - theodric 4y ago
      Quite. And that, too, is only business ;-)
- selcuka 4y ago
  > is he morally bound to actively pump out lies and propaganda if that increases profits? That's why I said "within legal restrictions". Ethics is not something defined for companies, even though we are led to believe that it is. It's for people. He could resign on his personal beliefs, or get fired if he can't sustain the growth, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the next CEO will probably do it.
elihu 4y ago
That's one theory. There's a competing theory that corporations have obligations to shareholders, customers, employees, and the community in which they operate. And as a practical matter, corporations can usually get away "doing the right thing" if they really want to, as it is good for the company's reputation in the long run, and therefore at least theoretically good for shareholders.
vidarh 4y ago
While this may be true in a general sense in that most companies have bylaws that does not set out another purpose, and that in theory shareholders could go after a board, and so indirectly a CEO, that does not seek to maximise profit, this is overly simplistic. The CEO is beholden to the directions of the board. The board has wide latitude to act within the rather wide remit of acting within the best interests of the shareholders (as a group, not individual shareholders). It's generally difficult to go after a board for setting direction that does not outright maximise profit other than by simply voting them out as long as there's some reasoning to justify why it is beneficial to the mission of the company to do something. That might e.g. be to ensure the reputation of the company. So as long as the CEO acts within what the board wants of them, and as long as the board maintains the trust of a majority of shareholders and aren't outright and blatantly violating the corporate bylaws (which can also specify other priorities than just profit), they can - and often do - decide that other things than profit matters. As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him. But the company certainly has principles in the form of its bylaws and the AGM and boards interpretation of them. The just might not be nice ones.
- ElFitz 4y ago
  What board? Midjourney has no investors. No shareholders. He’s only beholden to himself. And proud of it.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Midjourney is an incorporated company. It has a board and at least one shareholder. Whether or not they're all the same person is irrelevant to the point made, which is that this annoying notion people keep bringing up when a CEO makes a choice that they're somehow inherently required to do what maximises profit is false.
    - ElFitz 4y ago
      > As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him. You made a general point. I agree with your general point. That last statement seemed to me to be about Midjourney specifically. In which case, because of Midjourney’s peculiar situation for this kind of company, it would have been inaccurate. And even if said statement wasn’t about Midjourney specifically, considering the subject at hand, pointing out it’s peculiar situation seemed relevant. But again, I totally agree that no, even though it’s often expected of them, CEOs aren’t inherently required to maximise profit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]