4 ms·

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 liv

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 This was somewhat superseded by Shlensky v. Wrigley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley This in turn is arguably superseded by eBay v. Newmark: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
> 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. ... 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. You are missing the point just as the gp did. I never said that corporations can be held to task for such things. I'm talking about what they _should_ do, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. morality. And such hypothetical destruction cannot _rightfully_ be ignored, because to do so is _morally wrong._ _That_ is the point. By continuing to miss it you are further illustrating the problem. Please wake up.
- angersock 12y ago
  What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand? Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little. What you want to claim is that corporations should view their actions morally, and what everyone is telling you is that no they shouldn't. You present (as a sibling comment) the notion that a company given a choice between the "wrong but profitable" and the "right but less profitable" should choose the "right" thing. And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus! Is the corporation going to Heaven or Hell because of how it's lived its "life"? No. Is the corporation going to have more friends because it's been "nice"? No. Is the corporation going to have better credit because, goshdarnit, it really tried to "help"? No. Are consumers going to change their buying habits because of what the company has done to its workers? Probably not--just look at Nike. Look, I dig the whole rage against the machine thing you're going for--I've been there myself. "There's morality in the world, goddamnit, there's right and wrong! We can't let the corporations run amok and ruin our nation and communities! This is a democracy! This is America!" you cry. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network! Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.

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

> 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. ... 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. You are missing the point just as the gp did. I never said that corporations can be held to task for such things. I'm talking about what they _should_ do, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. morality. And such hypothetical destruction cannot _rightfully_ be ignored, because to do so is _morally wrong._ _That_ is the point. By continuing to miss it you are further illustrating the problem. Please wake up.

angersock 12y ago
What part of "morality doesn't apply to businesses" don't you understand? Do you blame a cat for catching a mouse? Do you blame a cruise missile for destroying a target? Do you blame a tornado for eviscerating a house? There are things to which the lens of morality offers very little. What you want to claim is that corporations should view their actions morally, and what everyone is telling you is that no they shouldn't. You present (as a sibling comment) the notion that a company given a choice between the "wrong but profitable" and the "right but less profitable" should choose the "right" thing. And we're telling you, we're all telling you, that you cannot evaluate a corporation through such a calculus! Is the corporation going to Heaven or Hell because of how it's lived its "life"? No. Is the corporation going to have more friends because it's been "nice"? No. Is the corporation going to have better credit because, goshdarnit, it really tried to "help"? No. Are consumers going to change their buying habits because of what the company has done to its workers? Probably not--just look at Nike. Look, I dig the whole rage against the machine thing you're going for--I've been there myself. "There's morality in the world, goddamnit, there's right and wrong! We can't let the corporations run amok and ruin our nation and communities! This is a democracy! This is America!" you cry. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Facebook and Google and Apple and IBM, Haliburton, GE, Tata Group, Phillip Morris, Alibaba, Mitsubishi. Those are the nations of the world today--or at least as far back as Network! Is it monstrous? Absolutely. Is it something we should find an alternative to? Certainly. But is it something to which it is useful to apply human morality to? No, and it never will be--you must engage the beast where it lives, on its terms.