3 ms·
J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.
by FireBeyond 3y ago
J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.
- hkt 3y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y ago[flagged]
- eropple 3y ago"Hmm, you raise systemic concerns yet you use the system because you live in a society enmeshed in it" is not a winning argument.
- scarface_74 3y agoWell, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.
- eropple 3y ago"Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and sufficiently dispersed decision-making power that nasty shit comes out of them regularly, is not and never persuasive.
- scarface_74 3y agoIt’s called having the courage of your convictions. Plenty of people live off of non profit salaries without having a wealthy spouse or even do public sector work.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y agoBut in this case, he’s actually making a living by working in a gun shop when he has other (less lucrative) options.
- eropple 3y ago[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y ago[flagged]
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoNot at all. Suppose you believe corporations are out of control, and it's on, what the best way to hurt them? Work for a charity and live in poverty? Become a hermit and live in a forest? no! Find the corporation tou hate most and get a job there. Do damage from the inside, sleep with the boss, work your way up, drive it bancrupt. Cause it to loose all talent. Work in two places at once, and do nothing in both jobs. Something like that
- shkkmo 3y agoNot in the general case, but in this specific case it does show that limited liability does more than provide welfare to companies to but also protects a large number of individual investors, including the commenter. That seems like a relevant counterargument to me.
- pessimizer 3y agoThe wealthiest 10% own 89% of stocks.
- andsoitis 3y ago> The wealthiest 10% own 89% of stocks. Interesting breakdown of stock ownership across demographics and time: https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/ https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd according to a sibling link, 59% have some money in stocks. How many public sector workers for instance who have pensions or retirees who have dividend paying stocks like J and J do you think are cheering for those “evil capitalists pigs” to go bankrupt?
- respondo2134 3y ago>>How many public sector workers for instance who have pensions or retirees who have dividend paying stocks like J and J All of them.
- respondo2134 3y agoI don't think you really understand what "Limited liability" means, nor who these supposed capitalists are. All those public pension plans & unionized retirement funds probably appreciate that they're not on the hook for unlimited liability from J&J.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoSo? You have said nothing to refute his point. Pention funds are capital. You don't need to optimise returns on capital at the cost of a generation that in currently young and working. Pention system can be managed differently if needed too.
- underlipton 3y agoBoomers who made bad investments instead of just saving for retirement. I sure would feel bad if those were raided to help alleviate the suffering of sick or bereaved people here, now. /s
- hkt 3y agoYou're right, they probably do. They're pretty relieved that they don't have to govern (which is what they're doing, by the way) with any regard for anyone but their shareholders.
- teraflop 3y agoAs the Levine article explained, and as has been reiterated several times in this comment thread: J&J is not "freed from the shackles of any liability", because it is still liable to its own subsidiary for the talc lawsuit claims, up to the full value of J&J itself (the parent company).
- londons_explore 3y agoSo how come J&J just paid a dividend? Shouldn't that money be being given to claimant's?
- respondo2134 3y agoThey haven't settled yet. You don't pay out while the case is being worked out, and paid to the claimant's what?
- bagacrap 3y agoIn a sense, the claimants are becoming shareholders of this company. That is, like shareholders, they have a claim to a certain portion of future cash flows. Like shareholders, they should be hoping that the business continues to thrive so that their claims can be paid out. The decision not to cut dividends in the face of an earnings shock is a pretty common one and not generally a sign of an executive team attempting to enrich themselves. It's more of a sign to shareholders that the executive team has faith in the robustness of the business, which helps if the goal is to survive the present difficulties.
- FireBeyond 3y ago> In a sense, the claimants are becoming shareholders of this company. That is, like shareholders, they have a claim to a certain portion of future cash flows. Like shareholders, they should be hoping that the business continues to thrive so that their claims can be paid out. This is an extremely perverse incentive and shows how fundamentally broken some of these mechanics are. "You injured me, and need to compensate me. But in order to do so I have to hope you continue to prosper, potentially injuring others along the way, so I get my compensation. I can choose between getting you shut down, but potentially not being compensated, or being compensated but knowing that you go on to be able to do this to others."