5 ms·

I personally find the presentation of corporate missions in quasi-religious terminology extremely off-putting. The company might be doing great things, but ther

I personally find the presentation of corporate missions in quasi-religious terminology extremely off-putting. The company might be doing great things, but there ought to be cultural space left for things much more important than companies.

jampekka 3y ago
Also they are blatant lies. The company can not, even by law, follow its mission if deviating from it is more profitable. One of those things we all know is bullshit but we just pretend not smelling it.
- philipov 3y ago
  What are you talking about? Please quote the law you refer to, so we can evaluate what it really does, because I don't believe you. There is no law that forces all companies to always pick the most profitable action. Especially not for non-profit corporations.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    For-profit LLCs' purpose by law is to make profit for its shareholders. In common law systems it may be to pinpoint to a specific law, but from judgements its clear[1]. In e.g. Finland it's plain and clear in the law too. Take time to smell the bullshit. [1] https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-struggle-with-the-idea-that-for-profit-corporations-seek-profit/ https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      OpenAI is neither a for-profit nor an LLC. It’s a non-profit that (confusingly) owns a for-profit arm which very specifically disclaims any obligation to produce a profit.
      - jampekka 3y ago
        If there are no special clauses in OpenAI Global LLC charter, Microsoft can sue if OpenAI Inc if they decline to do something profitable for e.g. moral reasons. 51% ownership doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the company. It's sort of a main point of a LLC.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        There are special clauses. Look up the OpenAI purple box.
    - philipov 3y ago
      https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value. Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders’ best interest. The company is supposed to serve the best interests of the shareholders, but that does not require an unwavering commitment to profit. What it does require is defined in the company's investment prospectus. The CEO and board must act as good fiduciaries but they are given broad discretion to decide what that entails. If you disagree with what the officers think is the best way to carry out these duties, the courts say your option is not to sue them, it is to invest in a different company.
      - jampekka 3y ago
        If the company leaves profit on the table based on e.g. moral reasons, shareholders have grounds to sue and typically win. Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?
        philipov 3y ago
        You don't have to take every profit opportunity if you believe it would jeopardize the long-term value of the company. If the shareholders don't agree and want you to maximize their short term interests instead, their recourse is to invest in a different company. It seems hard for some people to understand that as well. Within the bounds of the prospectus, reasonable people can disagree on how to maximize the value of a corporation, and the shareholders don't get to decide how to do that. They only get to decide how to allocate their funds. It is the job of corporate management to decide what risks are worth taking.
        3y ago
  - verall 3y ago
    It's a law more like Conway's Law than U.S. Law. Call it "The law of diffused corporate responsibilities". And it doesn't mean the most profitable option will be picked, but it does ensure that easy money is not left on the table, while lots of other money is set on fire in pursuit of the personal interests of director level managers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jampekka 3y ago

Also they are blatant lies. The company can not, even by law, follow its mission if deviating from it is more profitable. One of those things we all know is bullshit but we just pretend not smelling it.

philipov 3y ago
What are you talking about? Please quote the law you refer to, so we can evaluate what it really does, because I don't believe you. There is no law that forces all companies to always pick the most profitable action. Especially not for non-profit corporations.
- jampekka 3y ago
  For-profit LLCs' purpose by law is to make profit for its shareholders. In common law systems it may be to pinpoint to a specific law, but from judgements its clear[1]. In e.g. Finland it's plain and clear in the law too. Take time to smell the bullshit. [1] https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-struggle-with-the-idea-that-for-profit-corporations-seek-profit/ https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    OpenAI is neither a for-profit nor an LLC. It’s a non-profit that (confusingly) owns a for-profit arm which very specifically disclaims any obligation to produce a profit.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      If there are no special clauses in OpenAI Global LLC charter, Microsoft can sue if OpenAI Inc if they decline to do something profitable for e.g. moral reasons. 51% ownership doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the company. It's sort of a main point of a LLC.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        There are special clauses. Look up the OpenAI purple box.
  - philipov 3y ago
    https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value. Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders’ best interest. The company is supposed to serve the best interests of the shareholders, but that does not require an unwavering commitment to profit. What it does require is defined in the company's investment prospectus. The CEO and board must act as good fiduciaries but they are given broad discretion to decide what that entails. If you disagree with what the officers think is the best way to carry out these duties, the courts say your option is not to sue them, it is to invest in a different company.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      If the company leaves profit on the table based on e.g. moral reasons, shareholders have grounds to sue and typically win. Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?
      - philipov 3y ago
        You don't have to take every profit opportunity if you believe it would jeopardize the long-term value of the company. If the shareholders don't agree and want you to maximize their short term interests instead, their recourse is to invest in a different company. It seems hard for some people to understand that as well. Within the bounds of the prospectus, reasonable people can disagree on how to maximize the value of a corporation, and the shareholders don't get to decide how to do that. They only get to decide how to allocate their funds. It is the job of corporate management to decide what risks are worth taking.
        3y ago
- verall 3y ago
  It's a law more like Conway's Law than U.S. Law. Call it "The law of diffused corporate responsibilities". And it doesn't mean the most profitable option will be picked, but it does ensure that easy money is not left on the table, while lots of other money is set on fire in pursuit of the personal interests of director level managers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]