3 ms·

> Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make life

by javert 12y ago

> Now, when that kind of relationship turns into getting the government to go after your competitors, overlook actions that are themselves unethical, make life more difficult for anyone not as large as you, that's highly unethical. But that is what the competition is doing. You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and shareholder value. The CEO of any large American corporation has this huge and unresolvable ethical dilemma. This is a symptom of rule by men, as opposed to rule by law. Rule by men is what the American voters want. It is what allows them to "get away with" all kinds of social programs---both conservative and liberal ones. Given a choice between sacrificing the public and sacrificing my company, I personally, if I were a major corporation CEO, would put my company first. In other words, I'd choose to play it Game of Thrones style. Woe to those who don't have $potus on their team.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that it's unethical. Also: > You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and shareholder value. Yes, I can. Your requirement is not to maximize profits at all cost unless that's what you write into your corporate charter. Don't do that. You can just as easily write a charter that leaves you room to make decisions that maximize long-term value even at the expense of short-term value, or that allow you to make ethical decisions at the expense of mercenary decisions, or even a "we can do whatever we want, live with it" charter. (And the interests of employees and shareholders are not always aligned. An ethical decision may involve favoring the former at the expense of the latter, for instance.)
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Only if you're a B-corporation [1]. There are a number of court precedents that hold that a company's officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize long-term shareholder value. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences_from_traditional_corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences... (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.)
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.) Agreed, and again, seeking preferential treatment (whether directly or in the form of regulations that are easier for you to comply with than your competitors) seems blatantly unethical. However, it shouldn't take asking a "boon" to stop the inexorable "this looks big enough and has enough money in it now, time to screw with it" cycle that seems to crop up every time an industry or company gets large enough for local governments to notice.

by javert 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago

I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that it's unethical. Also: > You can't ask a CEO not to do the best to protect his employees and shareholder value. Yes, I can. Your requirement is not to maximize profits at all cost unless that's what you write into your corporate charter. Don't do that. You can just as easily write a charter that leaves you room to make decisions that maximize long-term value even at the expense of short-term value, or that allow you to make ethical decisions at the expense of mercenary decisions, or even a "we can do whatever we want, live with it" charter. (And the interests of employees and shareholders are not always aligned. An ethical decision may involve favoring the former at the expense of the latter, for instance.)

nostrademons 12y ago
Only if you're a B-corporation [1]. There are a number of court precedents that hold that a company's officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize long-term shareholder value. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences_from_traditional_corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#Differences... (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.)
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > (Commenting on the main point made in this thread: it is technically the government's responsibility to not be swayed by whatever corporate influence tactics are used on them. They do a piss-poor job at it - somewhat understandably, as the money & influence provided by corporations often makes the difference between staying in office and being removed from office. But in theory, you can ask for whatever boons you want, it's just that our elected officials are supposed to consider the rights of all citizens when granting them.) Agreed, and again, seeking preferential treatment (whether directly or in the form of regulations that are easier for you to comply with than your competitors) seems blatantly unethical. However, it shouldn't take asking a "boon" to stop the inexorable "this looks big enough and has enough money in it now, time to screw with it" cycle that seems to crop up every time an industry or company gets large enough for local governments to notice.