|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 67 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 25 of 67:
| 
Mar 29 14:41 UTC 2002 |
I'd venture that a true capitalist would say #0 is how businesses are
supposed to function. They're supposed to produce maximum profit for
their shareholders, period. I think it's been successfully argued that
they even have a legal *duty* to do so.
This is why corporations need to be regulated. They can generally be
counted on *not* to act in the best interests of the society in general.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 26 of 67:
|
Mar 29 14:52 UTC 2002 |
"WHats good for GM is good for the country."
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 67:
|
Mar 29 16:27 UTC 2002 |
The legal duty is NOT to maximise profit. The legal duty is to function
in compliance with the law. The profit is the incentive to begin the
undertaking in the first place.
|
danr
|
|
response 28 of 67:
|
Mar 29 16:59 UTC 2002 |
re #26: If only that were true...
|
oval
|
|
response 29 of 67:
|
Mar 29 18:21 UTC 2002 |
only 5 more!
|
jp2
|
|
response 30 of 67:
|
Mar 29 18:32 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 31 of 67:
|
Mar 29 22:05 UTC 2002 |
And just about anybody could tell you that YOUR head is up your ass, and
would. What's your point?
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 67:
|
Mar 29 22:18 UTC 2002 |
There difference is, you are still wrong. I swear, how do you surive the day
never getting anything right?
|
oval
|
|
response 33 of 67:
|
Mar 29 22:23 UTC 2002 |
how do you survive the day at all?
|
mary
|
|
response 34 of 67:
|
Mar 29 23:50 UTC 2002 |
There are lots of places one goes when they need to escape reality and the
rules that real people must abide. Places dripping in gold with hardly
any litter.
Like Oz or Shangri-La.
|
oval
|
|
response 35 of 67:
|
Mar 29 23:52 UTC 2002 |
.. or m-net
|
mdw
|
|
response 36 of 67:
|
Mar 30 01:24 UTC 2002 |
The legal term for a corporate director's duty to maximize profits is
called "fiduciary duty". While courts do recognize this duty, they also
recognize that there are many more than one way to fulfill this duty, so
much so that they are unlikely to intervene except in the case that
there's evidence of criminal mischief. This is as it should be; in most
cases, the voting members of the corporation have sufficient means to
replace the director if he does not pan out.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 37 of 67:
|
Mar 30 04:05 UTC 2002 |
Exactly. If Watson of IBM had decided to refuse to do business with
the Germans in 1933 and write off the entire german portion of IBM
the shareholders would have been up in arms (and rightfully so) and
you'uns would be reading this post on your UNIVAC PCs or compatibles.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 67:
|
Mar 30 04:08 UTC 2002 |
"Fiduciary duty" is not to maximize profits, but to NOT do anything
that would create a loss. Companies can choose, within reason, what
profit they wish to make, and a company that chooses to make little
or no profit (out of altrustic motives) is its business, and not
an error in "fiduciary duty".
|
raven
|
|
response 39 of 67:
|
Mar 30 05:03 UTC 2002 |
re #37 Do you actually read what you type Beady, you are saying that selling
tabulating machines to the Nazis so they could round up Jews more efficently
was a good thing? Who needs leftist propaganda when the right themselves
show how totally amoral the policies they advoocate are.
re#14 The same world bank that causes suffering for millions throught the
world every day. But then I forget you advocate trading with Nazis.
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=7&row=1
|
oval
|
|
response 40 of 67:
|
Mar 30 05:07 UTC 2002 |
..and isn't it ironic that most right wingers also consider themselves
religious .. tryin to be like jesus and all that ..
|
bdh3
|
|
response 41 of 67:
|
Mar 30 07:01 UTC 2002 |
Isn't it ironic that most left wingers require lockstep agreement with
leftist point of view that would have made Joe Stalin envious?
re#39: Did you read what I said? There is no way in 1933 that yer
average stockholder of IBM would have know what Hitler had in mind and
thus in 1933 it was prudent business to try and salvage or operate as
much of the assets of IBM as possible for the benefit of the
stockholders. That was his job then, and is the job of any publically
held company management - or at least it should be. Its not even
that likely that even he, being a pretty smart fellow, could have
known where a small geographic part of his business was headed.
re#39re#14: I assume you mean my comment re IMF? I would just as soon
as see institutions such as the IMF be eliminated in toto. Failing
that I would like to see that benefitiaries of IMF largess live up to
their commitments under the terms of the loans. Who causes suffering?
The IMF or the corrupt regime of the country that benefits from the IMF
but operates in a criminal/corrupt fashion?
And where the hell do you get that I 'advocate trading with nazis'?
If I gave a hoot or a hollar about grex I would sue you for libel.
re#40: Yeah, isn't it ironic that the athiest left considers 'religious'
to be a slander, an evil thing to be attributed to the 'right'.
Personally, to be accused of being 'christ like' is a complement that
I personally do not feel worthy of.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 67:
|
Mar 30 15:56 UTC 2002 |
Because you can't do it?
|
danr
|
|
response 43 of 67:
|
Mar 30 17:57 UTC 2002 |
I think the point is that most people who like to point out how
religious or Christ-like they are, are usually neither. This point is
usually over the heads of these people.
|
oval
|
|
response 44 of 67:
|
Mar 30 21:29 UTC 2002 |
if you write (soft)ware that is meeant for counting and categorizing jews for
a government that has invaded other lands and declared an intention of
'removing' jews, how can you not be 'in the know'?
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 67:
|
Mar 30 23:56 UTC 2002 |
Hey, as a business, I don't care what my customers use my products for.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 46 of 67:
|
Mar 31 00:18 UTC 2002 |
re #45: How far are you willing to take that? Guns to terrorists?
Nuclear processing equipment to Iraq? Biological lab equipment to
Osama?
|
scott
|
|
response 47 of 67:
|
Mar 31 02:12 UTC 2002 |
How about if Jamie sold a gun to somebody who wanted to kill him?
|
mdw
|
|
response 48 of 67:
|
Mar 31 02:40 UTC 2002 |
Re #38 -- even that "not make a loss" is nothing courts care about.
Companies can and often do deliberately choose to lose money.
Sometimes, this is merely profit shifting, as in investing heavily in
some technology that might produce huge profits in the future, at the
cost of a smaller loss in the present. Sometimes, this is a deliberate
effort to shut the competition out. This could be looked upon as a form
of profit shifting, except it's not necesarily the case that there's
more profit to be made this way. Sometimes, it's done merely for tax
purposes. From the tax perspective, it's best to always lose money.
The IRS gets much more upset about this than the courts do, for obvious
reasons.
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 67:
|
Mar 31 02:58 UTC 2002 |
46: <cough>Let's not talk about that, mmmkay?</cough>
|