5 ms·

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 w

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.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I find A&E makes a good example for this. For A&E to work well needs A&E departments located within easy reach of an incident and to be staffed by people who are kept in practice and will operate immediately if required, instead of doing financial admin first. Now this list of factors means you can always make money by shutting down A&E departments as they cannot do anything but operate at a loss. However no matter how much money you make by doing so, you are increasing your own accidental mortality risk.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    What does "A&E" stand for? Edit: Found it - it is The UK equivalent of what Americans call a hospital Emergency Room or just "Emergency".
    - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
      Accident and emergency
    - stan_rogers 12y ago
      Accident and emergency; it's the British English equivalent of the North American ER (emergency room).
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      Edit 2: I typed too slow! Thanks though!
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

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.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
I find A&E makes a good example for this. For A&E to work well needs A&E departments located within easy reach of an incident and to be staffed by people who are kept in practice and will operate immediately if required, instead of doing financial admin first. Now this list of factors means you can always make money by shutting down A&E departments as they cannot do anything but operate at a loss. However no matter how much money you make by doing so, you are increasing your own accidental mortality risk.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  What does "A&E" stand for? Edit: Found it - it is The UK equivalent of what Americans call a hospital Emergency Room or just "Emergency".
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    Accident and emergency
  - stan_rogers 12y ago
    Accident and emergency; it's the British English equivalent of the North American ER (emergency room).
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    Edit 2: I typed too slow! Thanks though!

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