this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
337 points (98.6% liked)
BrainWorms
1251 readers
38 users here now
Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.
This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I dunno man, I had a management professor raise an argument that a publicly traded business had only one function, and that was to provide value to its shareholders. Anything else, such as charitable donations, could be considered stealing from its shareholders - unless it provided a return on investment (e.g. a charitable donation provided good PR which caused more people to buy your product).
I don't think the professor truly believed the argument he was making, but more presenting it as a "this is how many successful businesses operate and how they justify it".
It's actually Supreme Court precedent that will allow shareholders to sue if a public company doesn't choose the most profitable way of doing business.
So in a public corporation, they have to choose the most evil way of doing business.
That's not the case and it's definitely not so simple; here's a short read on why:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Interesting read, I definitely held the opposite opinion previously. No idea where I first heard it, but it's one of these "easy to grasp, difficult to let go" ideas.
See also "alpha males", which is also total BS, but often repeated.
Seems like an idea that these corps would love to spread. "Oh sorry, we just have to be evil because of those dang shareholders and regulations and such, you know we'd love to be completely benevolent but our hands are tied."
Thank you for sharing this, I heard that justification so many times I had taken it for fact.