That link seems to support my point of the government having a leash on things, and when that was loosened or removed, we got what we have. Granting certain privileges for doing public good sounds a lot like regulatory management to me. But that’s only possible if corporations don’t have their own leash on the government from inside, which was my point all along.
Yeah, the point you made later in your comment was fine. I just wanted to push back specifically on the notion that companies trying to maximize profit at all costs, even including abuse and exploitation, is what they “should” do. That isn’t okay – not ethically and not even legally, despite the widespread misreading of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co – and we should stop giving corporate stooges a pass for trying gaslight us otherwise.
That’s a valid argument, however it’s a pretty gray one because it depends on what you refer to as the company, all costs, or motive. Note that in your points you use abuse, exploitation, and legally, implying that the company is breaking laws. So there the problem isn’t regulation, but enforcement of them.
But I don’t want to get into a debate on the finer details and legalese, you got my point. And my phrasing of what the company “should” do was probably too vague. A company’s goal (not the individuals inside it) is to produce something and try to profit from it. That’s it. How it can and does do that is determined by laws and the people running it, and that’s where the control and ethics and legal lines begin.
Note that in your points you use abuse, exploitation, and legally, implying that the company is breaking laws.
Let me clarify: what I’m talking about is that people think the ruling in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co absolutely requires companies to do everything they can to “maximize shareholder value,” but it doesn’t. The part of the opinion that mentioned that was meant to be dicta, not legally binding.
The law does not require companies to act sociopathically. “We needed to maximize shareholder value” is not a valid excuse.
That link seems to support my point of the government having a leash on things, and when that was loosened or removed, we got what we have. Granting certain privileges for doing public good sounds a lot like regulatory management to me. But that’s only possible if corporations don’t have their own leash on the government from inside, which was my point all along.
Yeah, the point you made later in your comment was fine. I just wanted to push back specifically on the notion that companies trying to maximize profit at all costs, even including abuse and exploitation, is what they “should” do. That isn’t okay – not ethically and not even legally, despite the widespread misreading of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co – and we should stop giving corporate stooges a pass for trying gaslight us otherwise.
That’s a valid argument, however it’s a pretty gray one because it depends on what you refer to as the company, all costs, or motive. Note that in your points you use abuse, exploitation, and legally, implying that the company is breaking laws. So there the problem isn’t regulation, but enforcement of them.
But I don’t want to get into a debate on the finer details and legalese, you got my point. And my phrasing of what the company “should” do was probably too vague. A company’s goal (not the individuals inside it) is to produce something and try to profit from it. That’s it. How it can and does do that is determined by laws and the people running it, and that’s where the control and ethics and legal lines begin.
Let me clarify: what I’m talking about is that people think the ruling in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co absolutely requires companies to do everything they can to “maximize shareholder value,” but it doesn’t. The part of the opinion that mentioned that was meant to be dicta, not legally binding.
The law does not require companies to act sociopathically. “We needed to maximize shareholder value” is not a valid excuse.