4 ms·

This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are

This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are if you try to build something different you are unlikely to be able to get much financing/funding to grow.

supportengineer 2y ago
The flip side of this is that it behooves everyone to be one of these greedy shareholders.
- glompers 2y ago
  However, a person's retirement investment funds that go to those equity markets in search of bigger paydays are funds that're generally never going to be available to loan for local development in thousands of communities where such a person lives. Big US banks are federally required to provide local lending to some degree, but overall isn't the effect still a lot like brain drain?
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. Doing good things on principle is in dire need of being reinvented, perhaps on first principles again. Eventually the doing for yourself ruins the whole world. We keep sliding down these chutes, ever more convinced to do for ourselves first, as things get worse & worse socially. Even Ford understood he needed to not just create workers for his factory, but a society affluent enough & well paid enough to buy cars. We no longer have that basic sense.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. True. Having the retirement funds of gen-pop tied to the wellbeing of some unscrupulous mega-corps, leads to a prisoner's dilemma where governments and gen-pop are incentivized to ignore or even support the exploitation, societal damage and misbehavior of such "too big to fail" entities. It becomes a form of mutually assured destruction: "you can regulate or fine us Uncle Sam, but you'll also be hurting the retirements of your citizens; are you sure you want to do that?"
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? Retirement depends upon the market economy to fund it either way. Your wellbeing was already tied from the start.
      - Cumpiler69 2y ago
        >Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? From my taxes currently.
tjwebbnorfolk 2y ago
Shareholders are the owners. Management are legally required to maximize profits for the owners who hired them. It's not merely a recent social construct. That's why you see shareholder lawsuits against their own company when management does something dumb/illegal and the stock drops.
- MiguelX413 2y ago
  That's the problem.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Management is not allowed to take a pile of money and just burn it for funsies. But the law does not require them to prioritize shareholder profits over literally everything. Shareholder Theory wasn't even a social norm in the US until the 70s!

supportengineer 2y ago

The flip side of this is that it behooves everyone to be one of these greedy shareholders.

glompers 2y ago
However, a person's retirement investment funds that go to those equity markets in search of bigger paydays are funds that're generally never going to be available to loan for local development in thousands of communities where such a person lives. Big US banks are federally required to provide local lending to some degree, but overall isn't the effect still a lot like brain drain?
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. Doing good things on principle is in dire need of being reinvented, perhaps on first principles again. Eventually the doing for yourself ruins the whole world. We keep sliding down these chutes, ever more convinced to do for ourselves first, as things get worse & worse socially. Even Ford understood he needed to not just create workers for his factory, but a society affluent enough & well paid enough to buy cars. We no longer have that basic sense.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. True. Having the retirement funds of gen-pop tied to the wellbeing of some unscrupulous mega-corps, leads to a prisoner's dilemma where governments and gen-pop are incentivized to ignore or even support the exploitation, societal damage and misbehavior of such "too big to fail" entities. It becomes a form of mutually assured destruction: "you can regulate or fine us Uncle Sam, but you'll also be hurting the retirements of your citizens; are you sure you want to do that?"
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? Retirement depends upon the market economy to fund it either way. Your wellbeing was already tied from the start.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      >Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? From my taxes currently.

tjwebbnorfolk 2y ago

Shareholders are the owners. Management are legally required to maximize profits for the owners who hired them. It's not merely a recent social construct. That's why you see shareholder lawsuits against their own company when management does something dumb/illegal and the stock drops.

MiguelX413 2y ago
That's the problem.
UncleMeat 2y ago
Management is not allowed to take a pile of money and just burn it for funsies. But the law does not require them to prioritize shareholder profits over literally everything. Shareholder Theory wasn't even a social norm in the US until the 70s!