3 ms·

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to

by thrill 3y ago

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

duped 3y ago
They don't, actually. This is an idea from Milton Friedman and it's just taught in business "ethics" class.
- raytopia 3y ago
  There's a good post [0] on stackexchange discussing this. [0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
iamflimflam1 3y ago
That’s just one of their duties. They are also supposed to make sure they obey any rules, regulations and laws.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  The government allows corporations to shield their shareholders from the companies malfeasance. If I own shares in Exxon Mobil no ones going to sue me personally for damages or put me on trial because the company did something illegal. That can absolutely happen in a general partnership. The government has every right to attach strings.
frankfrank13 3y ago
If you can both downgrade the quality of your product and boost profits, you may be a monopoly. If Amazon can charge for worse ads, use that data and learnings to undercut its sellers by better positioning its own/preferred products, and therefore make more money you can almost certainly argue it is a monopoly, which is what the FTC is trying to do.
kibwen 3y ago
The reason that we, as members of a society, allow corporations to exist is out of the belief that they can improve society. If your company doesn't improve society as a side effect of increasing your profits, then we have no obligation to tolerate the existence of your company.
- gotoeleven 3y ago
  false!
metabagel 3y ago
You don’t understand. This is antitrust enforcement.
colechristensen 3y ago
In this case the FTC is concerned with Amazon abusing its dominant market position to take advantage of third party sellers who buy ads. They aren’t protecting consumers, they’re protecting sellers.
cratermoon 3y ago
> corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

by thrill 3y ago

duped 3y ago

They don't, actually. This is an idea from Milton Friedman and it's just taught in business "ethics" class.

raytopia 3y ago
There's a good post [0] on stackexchange discussing this. [0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

iamflimflam1 3y ago

That’s just one of their duties. They are also supposed to make sure they obey any rules, regulations and laws.

Gibbon1 3y ago
The government allows corporations to shield their shareholders from the companies malfeasance. If I own shares in Exxon Mobil no ones going to sue me personally for damages or put me on trial because the company did something illegal. That can absolutely happen in a general partnership. The government has every right to attach strings.

frankfrank13 3y ago

If you can both downgrade the quality of your product and boost profits, you may be a monopoly. If Amazon can charge for worse ads, use that data and learnings to undercut its sellers by better positioning its own/preferred products, and therefore make more money you can almost certainly argue it is a monopoly, which is what the FTC is trying to do.

kibwen 3y ago

The reason that we, as members of a society, allow corporations to exist is out of the belief that they can improve society. If your company doesn't improve society as a side effect of increasing your profits, then we have no obligation to tolerate the existence of your company.

gotoeleven 3y ago
false!

metabagel 3y ago

You don’t understand. This is antitrust enforcement.

colechristensen 3y ago

In this case the FTC is concerned with Amazon abusing its dominant market position to take advantage of third party sellers who buy ads. They aren’t protecting consumers, they’re protecting sellers.

cratermoon 3y ago

> corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...