5 ms·
Google, as a publicly traded company, has an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders — and there’s nothing wrong with that! Why is there always this kne
by lvs 13y ago
Google, as a publicly traded company, has an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders — and there’s nothing wrong with that!
Why is there always this knee-jerk instinct to disclaim any critique of unfettered capital? It unhinges the basic thesis of his argument to say "there's nothing wrong with that." The claim is obviously that there is something -- albeit loosely defined -- wrong with it, which is why the comparison is being made in the first place. Let's feel free to have a real discussion about whether there's something wrong with the primary motive of enterprise to be maximizing shareholder profit, shall we?
- forgottenpass 13y agoWhy is there always this knee-jerk instinct to disclaim any critique of unfettered capital? As a dude that makes this disclaimer when trying to make a more subtle point, it acts as a sort of a preemptive dismissal to the just-as-kneejerk "SOCIALIST!" or "ENTITLEMENT!" critiques. A way to separate critiques of a business model itself from some saying "in this one context, this business model has some ramification that aren't so hot" is useful.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoExcept that a nasty ramification is itself evidence in favor of a broad critique of the business model. And what's wrong with socialists?
- forgottenpass 13y agoExcept that a nasty ramification is itself evidence in favor of a broad critique of the business model. I guess, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. You can probably extrapolate any small point into a larger one if you want, but it'd be disingenuous to paint any "this thing isn't perfect" point as broad critique. And what's wrong with socialists? I didn't say there was. It's not uncommon for people to loudly dismiss things that even hint at questioning their world view with eye-roll-educing cries of socialism. If we're not actually discussing socialism, this can be a time wasting distracting and it's often worthwhile to nip that tangent in the bud.
- craigyk 13y agoAnd i think it's actually an obligation to look after the shareholder's interest, presumably under the threat of the top dogs being replaced. To my mind that's an important but subtle difference from the "legal obligation to maximize profits"
- mikestew 13y agoPeople say that to justify the "yea, capitalism!" statement that is about to follow. But it's not true. Google doesn't have an obligation to do squat, at least not legally (and most who claim this use the phrase "legal obligation"). Sure, the board can vote out some C-levels (maybe), but no one is going to jail. The next time you hear someone make that claim, know that what follows is likely as equally uninformed or follows an agenda.
- MichaelGG 13y agoNot to mention, the entire premise is idiotic. Knowing what will produce most profits is not a simple arithmetic problem. Google could dump half their profit into advanced research and just claim "it'll pay off". Pretty much any action outside embezzlement could be claimed to be done to increase profits.
- fauigerzigerk 13y agoI think what we can assume is that over the long run and averaging over all public corporations, shareholders are willing and to some degree able enforce their interest in profit maximization. That doesn't mean it's true for every single corporation at every single moment in time. And you're right, it's impossible to know whether any individual action maximizes profits or not.