5 ms·

Suppose that no amount is sufficient. That means every business is a failure to fill an infinitely large stomach.

by pekk 13y ago

rosser 13y ago
It's as good a hypothesis as any I've heard to explain the observed behavior, and better than most.
- 178 13y ago
  "On the gravestone of capitalism it will say: 'Too much was not enough'." – Volker Pispers, German Comedian
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Should you wish to bring down capitalism, your plan should have the feature of being immensely profitable in the short term. Then the transnational investment arm of a major banking conglomerate will steal your idea and go off and do it for you and you can put your feet up.
    - davidgerard 13y ago
      Some say ...
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  By definition, the legal obligation of a business company is to maximize its profits, preferably while not getting caught breaking any laws. That is not a hypothesis. That is the legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do.
  - eru 13y ago
    The duty of the business is to the shareholders, yes. But the shareholders can vote on any goal they feel like (including making profit, of course).
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > By definition, the legal obligation of a business company is to maximize its profits, preferably while not getting caught breaking any laws. That is the legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do. [citation needed]. There is no law that I can think of that forces me, as a business owner to maximize my profits nor does any law prescribe the golden path for achieving said maximum. Generally speaking my business can incur losses as long as I find people willing to pay the money - either through loans, donations, whatever other means. I'm free to run my company as I wish as long as I get the majority of shareholders to agree. There is one caveats that applies: If I run out of money, my company goes bankrupt. If I willfully or negligently damage the company by e.g. performing illegal acts and thus damage the property of other shareholders I might be liable. Paying decent wages certainly does not fall into this category. Capitalism does not require companies to become bad actors. It certainly provides a lot of incentives to do so, but it's still the actors decision. Blaming any "legally enforced and encoded definition" is blame shifting.
    - tomp 13y ago
      Generally speaking, most of the biggest and most profitable businesses don't have a single owner, but are instead traded on stock markets. People who own the shares are not people who run the company. The managers, people who run the company, have an obligation to maximize the profits (in US, and probably UK), otherwise the shareholders can sue them for loosing their money, even if they did the morally right thing. In Germany, however, profit maximization is not the only goal, but businesses can consider other stakeholders as well (employees, community, environment, ...)
      - Xylakant 13y ago
        > The managers, people who run the company, have an obligation to maximize the profits (in US, and probably UK), otherwise the shareholders can sue them for loosing their money, even if they did the morally right thing. Nope. You certainly got it wrong. See the linked posts from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129788. One of the potential source for that confusion might be that directors decisions can be challenged on the presumption that they are wasteful, but you'd have to prove that paying a decent wage is wasteful which is a very hard hurdle to overcome. Bad faith may be another option - but that's a different story. Being traded on the stock market provides a lot of incentive to maximize profits since more profitable companies trade better - but it's not a legal requirement.
  - mh- 13y ago
    this is a total myth that is somehow oft-parroted on the internet. directors/officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to its stockholders. this is three-pronged: good faith, loyalty, due care. there is no such 'maximize profits' mandate in common law. See business judgment rule and Directors' duties. if these don't clarify things, please ask questions. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors%27_duties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors%27_duties .. edit: another poster (netcan) gave a great explanation in a sibling thread- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129582
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    >>legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do. Well then certainly you can point us to the law that legally encodes a definition of capitalism and provides a regulatory regime that provides relief when someone practices "unorthodox capitalism."
  - rosser 13y ago
    Please, please, please: can we retire this meme already?
  - mapt 13y ago
    There are two standards for a corporate executive to consider: 1) What the majority of the shareholders say 2) What a court would rule if a minority of the shareholders decided to sue the executive on the grounds that they (and presumably the majority stake) are depriving the minority shareholder of profits they have a legal fiduciary responsibility to provide. What you are speaking about is #2. There is a high bar for such lawsuits, but there is a legal standard. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20...

Suppose that no amount is sufficient. That means every business is a failure to fill an infinitely large stomach.

by pekk 13y ago

Suppose that no amount is sufficient. That means every business is a failure to fill an infinitely large stomach.

rosser 13y ago

It's as good a hypothesis as any I've heard to explain the observed behavior, and better than most.

178 13y ago
"On the gravestone of capitalism it will say: 'Too much was not enough'." – Volker Pispers, German Comedian
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Should you wish to bring down capitalism, your plan should have the feature of being immensely profitable in the short term. Then the transnational investment arm of a major banking conglomerate will steal your idea and go off and do it for you and you can put your feet up.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    Some say ...
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
By definition, the legal obligation of a business company is to maximize its profits, preferably while not getting caught breaking any laws. That is not a hypothesis. That is the legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do.
- eru 13y ago
  The duty of the business is to the shareholders, yes. But the shareholders can vote on any goal they feel like (including making profit, of course).
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > By definition, the legal obligation of a business company is to maximize its profits, preferably while not getting caught breaking any laws. That is the legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do. [citation needed]. There is no law that I can think of that forces me, as a business owner to maximize my profits nor does any law prescribe the golden path for achieving said maximum. Generally speaking my business can incur losses as long as I find people willing to pay the money - either through loans, donations, whatever other means. I'm free to run my company as I wish as long as I get the majority of shareholders to agree. There is one caveats that applies: If I run out of money, my company goes bankrupt. If I willfully or negligently damage the company by e.g. performing illegal acts and thus damage the property of other shareholders I might be liable. Paying decent wages certainly does not fall into this category. Capitalism does not require companies to become bad actors. It certainly provides a lot of incentives to do so, but it's still the actors decision. Blaming any "legally enforced and encoded definition" is blame shifting.
  - tomp 13y ago
    Generally speaking, most of the biggest and most profitable businesses don't have a single owner, but are instead traded on stock markets. People who own the shares are not people who run the company. The managers, people who run the company, have an obligation to maximize the profits (in US, and probably UK), otherwise the shareholders can sue them for loosing their money, even if they did the morally right thing. In Germany, however, profit maximization is not the only goal, but businesses can consider other stakeholders as well (employees, community, environment, ...)
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > The managers, people who run the company, have an obligation to maximize the profits (in US, and probably UK), otherwise the shareholders can sue them for loosing their money, even if they did the morally right thing. Nope. You certainly got it wrong. See the linked posts from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129788. One of the potential source for that confusion might be that directors decisions can be challenged on the presumption that they are wasteful, but you'd have to prove that paying a decent wage is wasteful which is a very hard hurdle to overcome. Bad faith may be another option - but that's a different story. Being traded on the stock market provides a lot of incentive to maximize profits since more profitable companies trade better - but it's not a legal requirement.
- mh- 13y ago
  this is a total myth that is somehow oft-parroted on the internet. directors/officers of a corporation have a fiduciary duty to its stockholders. this is three-pronged: good faith, loyalty, due care. there is no such 'maximize profits' mandate in common law. See business judgment rule and Directors' duties. if these don't clarify things, please ask questions. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors%27_duties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors%27_duties .. edit: another poster (netcan) gave a great explanation in a sibling thread- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7129582
- wavefunction 13y ago
  >>legally enforced and encoded definition of what capitalism must do. Well then certainly you can point us to the law that legally encodes a definition of capitalism and provides a regulatory regime that provides relief when someone practices "unorthodox capitalism."
- rosser 13y ago
  Please, please, please: can we retire this meme already?
- mapt 13y ago
  There are two standards for a corporate executive to consider: 1) What the majority of the shareholders say 2) What a court would rule if a minority of the shareholders decided to sue the executive on the grounds that they (and presumably the majority stake) are depriving the minority shareholder of profits they have a legal fiduciary responsibility to provide. What you are speaking about is #2. There is a high bar for such lawsuits, but there is a legal standard. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/05/case-law-on-the-fiduciary-duty-of-directors-to-maximize-the-wealth-of-corporate-shareholders.html http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20...