3 ms·
This is why wealthy individuals are better for society than shareholder-owned corporations. If the latter made a move like this, the entire board would be fired
by lukifer 15y ago
This is why wealthy individuals are better for society than shareholder-owned corporations. If the latter made a move like this, the entire board would be fired immediately.
- gwern 15y agoIf 90+% of the shareholders voted to distribute that quarter's profits to charity - the equivalent scenario to the general partners so voting, no? - who would be firing the board?
- meric 15y agoA substantial portion of those a funds that are responsible for investing their member's money. Are you asking me to invest half my profits in my superannuation fund to charity? To me, my fund will give me more benefit by maximising the profit from investments, hand me back my share of profit, and let me choose MY choice of charity!
- lukifer 15y agoHas this ever happened, ever? On the scale of 50% of a very large sum? Altruism is a kind of positive irrationality; the more stake-holders are involved, the more exponentially unlikely such irrationality becomes.
- netrus 15y agoI don't see how altruism is more irrational than luxory consumption. Doing charity will make you happy and fulfilled - quite a smart move to do so ;) (yes, I know that charity != altruism. But this is a very theoretical discussion)
- lukifer 15y agoI mean "rational" in terms of being able to justify it to others, and have it be rational to them too. I can convince the board why a moderate donation to Charity X is good PR, or why funding Product Y is a sound investment. It's much harder to justify why the company should give away half its profit with no direct return.
- JoachimSchipper 15y agoThat's not equivalent; the equivalent is the board deciding to give 50% of their own fees to charity. (Note that it's only the general partners, i.e. fund managers, doing this; they do return 100% of profits to their limited partners, i.e. clients.)