4 ms·
Why should they? Why does there need to be a dichotomy between doing something good and living in poverty, or else do everything possible to squeeze out the ne
by dasil003 3y ago
Why should they? Why does there need to be a dichotomy between doing something good and living in poverty, or else do everything possible to squeeze out the next short-term dollar. It strikes me as a profound failure of imagination to think there's no possible way to structure our economy where more companies could pursue profit in balance with other goals that can not directly be translated into next quarter's P&L statement.
- OJFord 3y agoHence the '/have to', I'm not saying they philosophically or morally 'should' - I'm not commenting on that at all - I'm saying they have a duty to 'maximise shareholder value', a legal obligation to owners to (aim to) make as much money for them as possible, basically. A privately owned company can do as it (that is: its owner(s) without state oversight) wishes. -- If you want me to comment on the philosophy or morals of it though, I suppose I think 'meh, whatever' - a private company is free to spring up and compete, free of public shareholders and free to maximise customer satisfaction instead. Of course it's easy to say 'free to spring up', and really there are all sorts of barriers to entry in many almost monopolistic markets, but that's rather a separate issue I think - it's just as much an issue for any less customer-oriented, perhaps public or wannabe public, company trying to compete.