This is, to me, the bedrock sin of our system.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @keeltyc @nototally
And when I've tried to explain it to people, more than once, they have refused to believe it was true.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @shaunltd @nototally
I've been told by someone with knowledge (I honestly cannot remember who, but I talk to a lot of lawyers) that the laws have been shifting to allow for more public interest stuff--specifically in response to environmental decisions--but it's still generally awful.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @keeltyc @nototally
Well, there was never an explicit statute that said "a company must maximize its stock price at all times" What there is is case law about the concept of "fiduciary duty", specifically that you have a "duty of loyalty" to the shareholders - you have to act in their interests
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It is, in theory, perfectly possible to argue that acting in their interests may not mean pushing up the short-term stock price - that acting in the interests of the environment, or public health, or the wider economy, or the nation in wartime is also in their interests
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The original idea that a CEO is obligated to turn a profit was from Dodge v Ford in 1919, which if you take it as completely literally applying to all companies today would hit all companies that, say, cut prices to reduce current earnings to squeeze competitors (like Amazon)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
So most people think that in practice it doesn't really apply to that extent anymore, although eBay v. Newmark was a pretty landmark case where it was decided that if a company *explicitly* doesn't care about its shareholders they can be sued
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.