3 ms·

> But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts

> But it's not up to execs, execs don't control the share price, no matter how much they wish they could. The market does. The market sees the fine, it adjusts the market cap, done. Not directly, but surely I don't need to explain to you what effect cutting costs typically has on share price? > Because shareholders elected the board. That's the entire foundation of joint-stock corporations, that shareholders get the rewards but also suffer the losses. Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. Why is this a desirable outcome? What is the problem with holding human beings responsible for their own actions? I don't give a fuck about the foundation of joint-stock corporations. If the foundations of joint-stock corporations result in sociopaths profiting off harming people with no consequences, the foundations of joint-stock corporations need to change or be discarded completely.

crazygringo 3y ago
> surely I don't need to explain to you what effect laying off a bunch of workers might have on share price? Surely you do, because sometimes the stock goes up if the workers weren't needed in the first place, sometimes it goes down because it shows the company is flailing, and sometimes it does nothing because it's business as usual. You're operating under an illusion that execs have control over how the market will respond. > Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. And I'm missing the part where anything I wrote gave you the excuse to be rude. Please be civil, this is HN.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - frankfrankfrank 3y ago
    I had to double check and you were not responding to me, but yes, it was in fact you who was passive aggressive rude and underhanded with your snide “surely I don’t have to”, conceited, pretentious, snarky response. If you’re going to accuse others of being rude, you should start. This is not reddit. Are you lost? Pretentious pomp should best be left at the door anywhere outside of the reddit quarantine of awful humans.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      What normal people are concerned about: "Corporations are destroying people's lives for the profit of a few." What Hacker News is concerned about: "Someone was slightly snarky in an internet post." I didn't accuse anyone of being rude. I don't care if you're rude to me. This whole "rudeness" thing is just a transparent way of distracting from the question: Why can't we hold executives personally, financially or criminally responsible when they make decisions that harm other people?
      - dbsmith83 3y ago
        Because "make decisions that harm people" is vague, and criminal codes should be explicit and clear? Who the fuck would want to do business if someone can arbitrarily claim they broke some vague law that most surely would not get applied fairly and equally? It's a terrible idea.
        kerkeslager 3y ago
        > Because "make decisions that harm people" is vague, and criminal codes should be explicit and clear? Nobody was proposing that "make decisions that harm people" should be the wording of the criminal code. Obviously nobody's drafting legal language to be passed as law on Hacker News. We're discussing, at a high level, the concept of holding people responsible for their actions. If a concrete example would help you, consider the Ford Pinto case, where people committed murder (a law that's already on the books, in clear language) and didn't go to jail for it because it was behind the veil of a corporation. > Who the fuck would want to do business if someone can arbitrarily claim they broke some vague law that most surely would not get applied fairly and equally? Oh no, what will we do without sociopaths in charge of the economy? Who will want money if they can't harm other people to get it? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like if people decide not to go into business because their business doesn't work without harming people, that's a good thing? If you're worried about people being treated unfairly, why are you completely ignoring everything that's being said about businesses harming workers and customers? Why are you only worried that the rich and powerful might be treated unfairly, despite a complete lack of historical precedent for that happening?
- sebastien_b 3y ago
  [dead]

crazygringo 3y ago

> surely I don't need to explain to you what effect laying off a bunch of workers might have on share price? Surely you do, because sometimes the stock goes up if the workers weren't needed in the first place, sometimes it goes down because it shows the company is flailing, and sometimes it does nothing because it's business as usual. You're operating under an illusion that execs have control over how the market will respond. > Sorry, I'm missing the part of this where you answered the question. And I'm missing the part where anything I wrote gave you the excuse to be rude. Please be civil, this is HN.

kerkeslager 3y ago
[flagged]
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago
  I had to double check and you were not responding to me, but yes, it was in fact you who was passive aggressive rude and underhanded with your snide “surely I don’t have to”, conceited, pretentious, snarky response. If you’re going to accuse others of being rude, you should start. This is not reddit. Are you lost? Pretentious pomp should best be left at the door anywhere outside of the reddit quarantine of awful humans.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    What normal people are concerned about: "Corporations are destroying people's lives for the profit of a few." What Hacker News is concerned about: "Someone was slightly snarky in an internet post." I didn't accuse anyone of being rude. I don't care if you're rude to me. This whole "rudeness" thing is just a transparent way of distracting from the question: Why can't we hold executives personally, financially or criminally responsible when they make decisions that harm other people?
    - dbsmith83 3y ago
      Because "make decisions that harm people" is vague, and criminal codes should be explicit and clear? Who the fuck would want to do business if someone can arbitrarily claim they broke some vague law that most surely would not get applied fairly and equally? It's a terrible idea.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        > Because "make decisions that harm people" is vague, and criminal codes should be explicit and clear? Nobody was proposing that "make decisions that harm people" should be the wording of the criminal code. Obviously nobody's drafting legal language to be passed as law on Hacker News. We're discussing, at a high level, the concept of holding people responsible for their actions. If a concrete example would help you, consider the Ford Pinto case, where people committed murder (a law that's already on the books, in clear language) and didn't go to jail for it because it was behind the veil of a corporation. > Who the fuck would want to do business if someone can arbitrarily claim they broke some vague law that most surely would not get applied fairly and equally? Oh no, what will we do without sociopaths in charge of the economy? Who will want money if they can't harm other people to get it? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like if people decide not to go into business because their business doesn't work without harming people, that's a good thing? If you're worried about people being treated unfairly, why are you completely ignoring everything that's being said about businesses harming workers and customers? Why are you only worried that the rich and powerful might be treated unfairly, despite a complete lack of historical precedent for that happening?
sebastien_b 3y ago
[dead]