8 ms·

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

alphapapa 12y ago
Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can." No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.
- cma 12y ago
  >And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".
  - alphapapa 12y ago
    That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering. You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value? Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.
      - alphapapa 12y ago
        Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed. In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.
        cma 12y ago
        If a company consistently does what's right they will be out competed by a company doing what's wrong. So they have to go a whole further level in their thinking.
    - cma 12y ago
      It is a systemic problem with the incentives. If the CEO is moral enough to go against shareholder interest, he'll be replaced. If not, the board members will be replaced through vote and possibly sued for going counter to shareholder interests. If not, the shareholders will be replaced by shareholders a more ruthless out-competiting company. Imploring everyone to just be more moral isn't going to fix the systemic problems.
- angersock 12y ago
  And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from Started with Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. This was somewhat superseded by Shlensky v. Wrigley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley This in turn is arguably superseded by eBay v. Newmark: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp... Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea. It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Thanks for the informed response. Someone has to. It's like no one understands fiduciary obligations.
    - alphapapa 12y ago
      No, it's like no one understands that there are things more important than money. That is one of the chief problems with large corporations: the people making the decisions are so far removed--insulated--from the consequences that they feel no responsibility for the negative effects on other entities. The numerous examples of corruption, evil, and greed in large corporations should come as no surprise--it's built-in to the system. And when someone points it out, there's one after another of people like yourself who exhibit a deafening WHOOSH with yet another, "but, but, but...money!" The single-mindedness is astounding.
  - alphapapa 12y ago
icebraining 12y ago
Isn't it interesting that despite the ban on CFCs, and the lack of an exception for medicine, being something imposed by the government, your response is to blame the companies? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree their lobbying is against the general interest of society, but it was the government that was elected to protect the interests of the public, and failed.
- aylons 12y ago
  The point is, both the urge and the power to lobby against the interest of the people come from the private and profitable nature of their interests. It was not a punctual failing of the moralities of the companies, it is a consequence of a system that stimulates them to do it and given them the power to do it successfully.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    But what actually hurt the people wasn't the lobbying, it was the actual banning of the CFCs in medicinal applications, which wasn't made by company with private and profitable interests, but by the government!
    - aylons 12y ago
      What I believe you're missing is that the government is not an isolated entity in a vacuum. Its made of people and groups that make their case and express their interests. In this case the interests of the private company prevailed. Notice that the proposal of not banning CFCs in medicinal applications was also a decision to be made by the government, but the pressure from the other side was simply not enough.

alphapapa 12y ago

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can." No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.

cma 12y ago
>And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".
- alphapapa 12y ago
  That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering. You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. What do you propose to measure it in then? There are situations where you can save X number of lives by doing Y hours of labor, and there are cases where Y is so much larger than X that you have to say no, we aren't going to do that. How do you propose to make that kind of decision without using some comparable measure of value? Nobody can claim that the current situation is optimal. It's kind of terrible. But it isn't because we measure things using money.
    - alphapapa 12y ago
      Your comparison is a bit apples-and-oranges. I'm talking about a situation in which a corporation can decide to either a) do something, make more profit, but harm other people in the process; or b) not do that something, make less profit, and leave others unharmed. In such a situation, the choice should be made without metrics and comparisons--it's a matter of right vs. wrong. That is what is missing from the decision-making process: morality.
      - cma 12y ago
        If a company consistently does what's right they will be out competed by a company doing what's wrong. So they have to go a whole further level in their thinking.
  - cma 12y ago
    It is a systemic problem with the incentives. If the CEO is moral enough to go against shareholder interest, he'll be replaced. If not, the board members will be replaced through vote and possibly sued for going counter to shareholder interests. If not, the shareholders will be replaced by shareholders a more ruthless out-competiting company. Imploring everyone to just be more moral isn't going to fix the systemic problems.
angersock 12y ago
And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored. I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from Started with Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. This was somewhat superseded by Shlensky v. Wrigley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley This in turn is arguably superseded by eBay v. Newmark: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp... Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea. It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Thanks for the informed response. Someone has to. It's like no one understands fiduciary obligations.
  - alphapapa 12y ago
    No, it's like no one understands that there are things more important than money. That is one of the chief problems with large corporations: the people making the decisions are so far removed--insulated--from the consequences that they feel no responsibility for the negative effects on other entities. The numerous examples of corruption, evil, and greed in large corporations should come as no surprise--it's built-in to the system. And when someone points it out, there's one after another of people like yourself who exhibit a deafening WHOOSH with yet another, "but, but, but...money!" The single-mindedness is astounding.
- alphapapa 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

Isn't it interesting that despite the ban on CFCs, and the lack of an exception for medicine, being something imposed by the government, your response is to blame the companies? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree their lobbying is against the general interest of society, but it was the government that was elected to protect the interests of the public, and failed.

aylons 12y ago
The point is, both the urge and the power to lobby against the interest of the people come from the private and profitable nature of their interests. It was not a punctual failing of the moralities of the companies, it is a consequence of a system that stimulates them to do it and given them the power to do it successfully.
- icebraining 12y ago
  But what actually hurt the people wasn't the lobbying, it was the actual banning of the CFCs in medicinal applications, which wasn't made by company with private and profitable interests, but by the government!
  - aylons 12y ago
    What I believe you're missing is that the government is not an isolated entity in a vacuum. Its made of people and groups that make their case and express their interests. In this case the interests of the private company prevailed. Notice that the proposal of not banning CFCs in medicinal applications was also a decision to be made by the government, but the pressure from the other side was simply not enough.