Attracting superior talent to a company doesn't benefit shareholders?
-
-
-
Aggressive partisanship & stifling ideological conformity drive away at least as many people as they attract.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Ah Milton Friedman line, where literally any corporate action that does not benefit shareholders is immoral. Ofc, according to him that included trying to pollute less, any concessions to labor, or attempting to hire minorities. Is that your position?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think there are three things execs might be doing. These actions might generate profits. They might be serving the interests of other stakeholders, like workers and customers (independent of how that affects profits). Or they might be doing what they personally prefer.
-
Nobody is going to defend the view that executives should use the company as they personally see fit. But why shouldn't a firm sometimes balance the interests of workers or customers against those of shareholders?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This assumes shareholders arent supportive of management If they were opposed they could remove managers. They have chosen not to.
-
And....shareholder like their voting rights.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you think Blackrock and CalPERS are upset by this development? I don't think so.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Business judgment rule protects them. Good luck getting a Delaware court to say a bland statement supporting voter rights is actually corporate waste and misuse of assets.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not principled when you couple it with pretend populism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.