TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation

258 点作者 neolander将近 6 年前

44 条评论

wiremine将近 6 年前
You can be cynical about this, and a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted given the authorship.<p>That said, it would be interesting (healthy?) to discuss&#x2F;debate the merits of the actual statements:<p>* Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations.<p>* Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.<p>* Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions.<p>* Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.<p>* Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders.<p>Curious where people thing they are wrong or incomplete.
评论 #20739256 未加载
评论 #20739715 未加载
评论 #20739007 未加载
评论 #20738909 未加载
评论 #20739378 未加载
评论 #20739151 未加载
评论 #20739141 未加载
评论 #20738932 未加载
评论 #20739116 未加载
评论 #20739066 未加载
评论 #20740946 未加载
评论 #20739238 未加载
评论 #20742841 未加载
评论 #20739433 未加载
评论 #20738998 未加载
评论 #20741200 未加载
评论 #20739645 未加载
评论 #20739235 未加载
评论 #20739078 未加载
评论 #20739694 未加载
评论 #20742994 未加载
评论 #20739163 未加载
AtlasBarfed将近 6 年前
Wake me up when I can use such a statement as a means to legally coerce corporations into compliance with existing laws, to say nothing of the exigent environmental threats facing the world.<p>Literally every CEO would laugh at this statement in the privacy of their office, while they engineer stock manipulation to trigger their stock options and retire in 5 years.<p>It&#x27;s like an ethics in business class at MBA schools. It&#x27;s window dressing.<p>Of course the political donations of the signers of this document, which is in all likelihood:<p>- non-binding - has no monetary commitments - involves no policy commitments contrary to their revenue streams - addresses no previous examples of bad behavior by the companies, nor any pledges to ameliorate those impacts<p>The political donations from these entities most assuredly will point to the exact opposite motivations.
评论 #20739038 未加载
评论 #20738901 未加载
评论 #20741262 未加载
评论 #20741629 未加载
basseq将近 6 年前
From today&#x27;s <i>Money Stuff</i> by Matt Levine[1]:<p><i>&gt; So when an association of big public-company CEOs gets together and declares that corporations should serve the community, take care of the environment, and be responsible to employees and customers, not just shareholders, that might be because the CEOs have thought it over and decided that employees and the environment are getting a raw deal, but it is also possible that the CEOs have thought it over and decided that shareholders are annoying.</i><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2019-08-19&#x2F;we-looks-out-for-our-selves" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2019-08-19&#x2F;we-loo...</a>
评论 #20745001 未加载
n-exploit将近 6 年前
If corporations want to make a real change and provide value to all stakeholders, they will need to develop a practice to systematically eliminate all negative externalities (risk) being transferred to society. Unfortunately, the current regulatory environment still makes this illegal&#x2F;impossible, given that executives are still legally bound to create value for shareholders.<p>The thoughts and feelings of these CEOs mean nothing unless it&#x27;s predicated&#x2F;followed by regulatory change.
评论 #20739156 未加载
评论 #20738786 未加载
评论 #20738841 未加载
评论 #20738843 未加载
评论 #20738834 未加载
评论 #20738873 未加载
GCA10将近 6 年前
Way back when, I used to do some volunteer work for the Better Business Bureau, which put out similar messaging in regard to everyday consumer complaints. It also was a business-funded group that, in hindsight, tried to accomplish three things:<p>1. Letting companies feel good about themselves<p>2. Providing something worthy sounding in the public eye that might defuse &quot;bad publicity.&quot;<p>3. Doing a bit of investigation and complaint resolution in connection with the scummiest 5% of businesses, which often weren&#x27;t members. Moral outrage? A desire to kneecap the most difficult competitors? Probably a bit of both.<p>I&#x27;ll agree with earlier posters who are a bit cynical about all the factors listed in Reasons 1 and 2. But Reason 3 shouldn&#x27;t be overlooked. I don&#x27;t think the Business Roundtable will suddenly be concerned about how Exxon, Walmart, etc. make their money or deal with customers, employees, suppliers, etc. On the other hand, odds are good that they will take a stand against small-time chicken processors, toxic-waste dumpers, etc.<p>Back in my BBB days, we did some real work to crack down on fraudulent apartment-referral outfits, which not only ripped off newcomers to New York City, but also made life ugly for the mainstream realtors, building owners, etc. that were BBB members.<p>Even if such battles may seem like grandstanding, they can be of some use.
cs702将近 6 年前
This new purpose stated by the CEOs of America&#x27;s largest corporations is <i>a welcome change</i> to the corporate ethos that has prevailed in the US since the &quot;greed is good&quot; days of the 1980&#x27;s. It is also a <i>preemptive response</i> to the growing popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
评论 #20741264 未加载
评论 #20739182 未加载
评论 #20745158 未加载
评论 #20741354 未加载
评论 #20739754 未加载
评论 #20741133 未加载
评论 #20739018 未加载
ckastner将近 6 年前
&gt; <i>Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance. Each version of the document issued since 1997 has endorsed principles of shareholder primacy – that corporations exist principally to serve shareholders. With today’s announcement, the new Statement supersedes previous statements and outlines a modern standard for corporate responsibility.</i><p>At first glance, this seems like a terrific move. In recent decades, this trend of shareholder primacy has been more than evident. CEOs are expected to lead their companies to more and more performance quarter by quarter, rather than focusing on the long-term prospect -- sometimes even at the cost of it.<p>Let&#x27;s hope that this &quot;shareholders first, at all costs&quot; mantra finally dies. There&#x27;s more than one dimension to success, especially future success.
strenholme将近 6 年前
My father is from a generation where, from the day he got hired to the day he retired, 45 years later, he worked for the same employer. That changed in the 1990s.<p>That changed in the 1990s because companies no longer valued long term commitments. The famous example is IBM laying off, in bulk, countless long-term employees in the interest of increasing their bottom line.<p>The only way I was able to get a pay raise in the tech industry was by changing jobs. Once I figured that out, I changed jobs about once a year to triple my salary. On the way of doing this to climb the corporate ladder, I saw a lot of unethical behavior:<p>I saw countless dot-com startups dissolve after all of the executives gave themselves as big of a golden parachute as possible; I had consultants tell me to put experience I never did on my resume; I saw a company closing shop without paying their employees their final paycheck; I saw (and still sometimes see) hucksters promising good work and “exposure” but saying they could not pay you “for the time being”; I see companies demanding extensive experience (the infamous “ten years of React” job posting -- keep in mind React has been around for under seven years) but never offering on-the-job training; I have seen people who have developed injury or disabilities interfering with their work being “laid off” without warning; I have seen big tech companies refusing to hire anyone outright and cut off contracts short in the interest of maximizing CEO pay and shareholder value.<p>In short, I have become cynical about the tech industry and how it treats employees. Sure, it’s a living wage, but they won’t hire you if you mention “work life balance” during the interview; they expect long hours from their employees and expect the company to become their passion or life. No wonder why fewer people in America decide to give birth to and raise kids; it’s just not possible with the insane hours tech companies expect from their employees.<p>Yes, I’ve become quite cynical about the tech industry. It chews up workers and spit them out. The happiest memories of my life are not being in some cubicle in some office making too much money, but the times in my life when I took a break from tech and supported myself as an English teacher in another country, and had time to actually make real world friends and be able to date normally. Those are the times I cherish; that and the time I spend with my beautiful daughter.
评论 #20740578 未加载
egypturnash将近 6 年前
How many of these corporations are putting their money where their mouth is and enshrining this in their charters, bylaws, and official procedures?<p>How many of these corporations are putting their money where their mouth is and lobbying lawmakers to make these things mandatory for all corporations?<p>How many of these corporations are putting their money where their mouth is and putting money into raising the minimum wage?<p>Money talks, bullshit walks.
jonwachob91将近 6 年前
&gt;&gt;&gt; “This new statement better reflects the way corporations can and should operate today,” added Alex Gorsky, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Johnson &amp; Johnson and Chair of the Business Roundtable Corporate Governance Committee. “It affirms the essential role corporations can play in improving our society when CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders.”<p>Oh the irony... [0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;rachelsandler&#x2F;2019&#x2F;07&#x2F;12&#x2F;johnson--johnson-under-criminal-investigation-for-concealing-cancer-risks-of-baby-powder&#x2F;#de739bd66e73" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;rachelsandler&#x2F;2019&#x2F;07&#x2F;12&#x2F;johnso...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2019&#x2F;jul&#x2F;24&#x2F;opioids-crisis-big-pharma-drugs-carnage" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2019&#x2F;jul&#x2F;24&#x2F;opioids-cris...</a>
mauld将近 6 年前
These sorts of statements always scare me a bit. First, businesses are still required to give maximum benefit to shareholders.<p>Second, even if this was the goal of a business, it then leaves it up to businesses(boards?, CEOs?) to define things like &quot;ethically&quot;, &quot;important benefits&quot;, &quot;diversity&quot; etc. These aren&#x27;t things you could get all people to agree on in the first place- hence the whole democracy thing we do. A lot easier to make these statements then turn them into policies.<p>Let businesses do what they do best - give them a set of constraints (laws) and let them maximize value. If they do &quot;good&quot; things as well, great, if not, fine. If we don&#x27;t like the outcomes (environmental damage, inequality) change the rules to change the value equation.
评论 #20739074 未加载
评论 #20743007 未加载
dougmwne将近 6 年前
<i>...it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.</i><p>Public corporations are not going to stop being paperclip maximizers until we legally and economically force them to stop. This is absolutely nothing but an attempt to divert public anger away from any new regulation that would force companies to deliver more value to society and less to shareholders. Sadly, no different than greenwashing.
评论 #20741121 未加载
评论 #20740639 未加载
wpasc将近 6 年前
I find the prospect of this translating into actual action is dubious.
perlgeek将近 6 年前
Do you want every American to benefit from your corporation? Spread &gt;50% of shares (with voting rights) to every American, and make sure they have an efficient way to pool their votes, and are represented on the board.<p>Want your corporation to be environmentally friendly? Give a significant amount of shares (again, with voting rights) to an environmental NGO.<p>Yes, that means giving up control, but it will work.
danans将近 6 年前
&gt; We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.<p>Without regulation, what is the mechanism to ensure that they comply? Public shaming? Survivor guilt?<p>Instead, how about bringing the stakeholders (starting with non-managerial-employee representatives) for these objectives onto the boards of directors?
foolinaround将近 6 年前
Anything that is as subjective as this cannot be enforced, and the CEOs will have a cop-out stating that they focussed on &quot;other outcomes&quot; and declare victory.
mattmcknight将近 6 年前
I think the final point is where there is the most leverage- giving preference to long term ownership interests over short term interests. Time based voting preferences, longer minimum holding periods for manager stock grants, more tax differential on long and short term gains and similar policies have potential to create an environment which is not as focused on the daily stock price and the quarterly numbers. Having the company serve the purpose of its owners is not a bad thing, otherwise the concept of ownership is meaningless, but if the intention of some of those owners is to briefly increase its value or liquidate assets to increase short term returns at the expense of longer term returns, that seems worthy of disincentivizing.
FabHK将近 6 年前
I think that&#x27;s great. This notion that corporations exist solely to maximise shareholder value is a neat solution for some real problems (principal&#x2F;agent) in a neat theoretical setting, but not a necessary fact of life, not a sufficient solution in the messy real world, and should certainly not be dogma.<p>Now, whenever there&#x27;s a discussion about what some company should do, and some free market devotee repeats the mantra that the company should just maximise shareholder value, one can point to this.<p>If hundreds of CEOs agree that the purpose of a corporation is a bit more complex than shareholder value maximisation, then the discussion can proceed to the hard part (how to trade off the different objectives and interests optimally).
thanatropism将近 6 年前
In Richard Powers&#x27;s novel GAIN, there&#x27;s a scene where the CEO of a Johnson &amp; Johnson type conglomerate tries to write down what&#x27;s the purpose of a corporation:<p>&quot;To make a profit. To make a consistent profit. To make a living. To make a profit in the long run. To make things. To make things in the most economical way. To make the greatest number of things. To make things that last the longest. To make things for the longest possible time. To make things people need. To make things people desire. To make people desire things. To give meaningful employment. To give reliable employment. To give people something to do. To do something. To provide the greatest good for the greatest number. To promote the general welfare. To provide for the common defense. To increase the value of the company stock. To pay a regular dividend. To maximize the net worth of the firm. To advance the lot of all stakeholders. To grow. To progress. To expand. To increase knowhow. To increase revenues and decrease costs. To compete efficiently. To buy low and sell high. To improve the hand humanity has been dealt. To produce the next round of technological innovations. To rationalize nature. To improve the landscape. To shatter space and arrest time. To see what the human race can do. To amass the country&#x27;s retirement pension. To amass the capital required to do anything we want to do. To discover what we want to do. To vacate the premises before the sun dies out. To make life a little easier. To build a better tomorrow. To kick something back into the kitty. To facilitate the flow of capital. To preserve the corporation. To do business. To stay in business. To figure out the purpose of business.&quot;
elihu将近 6 年前
I took a look at the signatories. Surprisingly, Amazon and Apple are on there. Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and IBM are not.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessroundtable.org&#x2F;business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessroundtable.org&#x2F;business-roundtable-redef...</a><p>(edit: removed text accidentally pasted in)
评论 #20739880 未加载
zentiggr将近 6 年前
Instead of effortless PR statements like this, let&#x27;s have a Fortune -5&#x2F;-10&#x2F;-50&#x2F;-100&#x2F;-500 of the costs companies have incurred from pollution and resource consumption and let everyone claw to the top of the &quot;least bad&quot; pile.<p>Keep your propaganda, take action and let that speak for you.<p>(Yes, I&#x27;m aware that can be gamed like any other metric. At least it involves concrete changes, not just a fluff piece.)
simonebrunozzi将近 6 年前
It&#x27;s &quot;funny&quot; to read about this, as in my spare time this past weekend (and sparely for a number of months now) I was thinking about creating a non-profit&#x2F;foundation focused on &quot;reducing the environmental impact&quot; of workers by 10x, as a way to combat climate change. The basic idea is to have companies &quot;pledge&quot; to vastly reduce the overall environmental footprint of their workers, either by direct action, or by buying or investing in initiatives that provide the same effect (a-là buying carbon credits to offset CO2 emission).<p>I don&#x27;t feel ready to discuss it in greater details; however, if any of you has experience in setting up non-profits and&#x2F;or foundations (I am based in San Francisco), I would love to talk to you.<p>Also, if any of you think it&#x27;s a great idea, feel free to ping me.<p>MyHNusername at gmail.
golemotron将近 6 年前
It&#x27;s a nice statement but as long as shareholders can sue corporations for not maximizing value regardless of externalities, the purpose of a corporation is defined <i>de facto</i> rather than <i>de jure.</i><p>Joel Bakan&#x27;s book <i>The Corporation</i> (and the documentary of the same name) lay out this case well.
jackcosgrove将近 6 年前
I don&#x27;t see anything changing as long as short-term decision-making is incentivized. Executive shares should vest according to some multiple of the average tenure of a company in the S&amp;P 500. If the multiple is 1, that means you need to beat the average to own a share of a company you manage. Tying it to the market average calibrates this schedule to the pace of company turnover due to external factors, such as population growth, technological change, etc. I&#x27;m not proposing a legal framework beyond requiring that these norms be promulgated and individual companies required to report the terms of share grants to management. Let investors make decisions armed with this information and enforce the norms that way. Maybe some form of this is already normal; I&#x27;d be curious to know.
amw将近 6 年前
It feels an awful lot like the people putting out this statement want to position themselves as the actual driving force behind the focus on shareholder value in the 80s, and thus use that branding to also posit an authority to change future corporate governance in a way that accommodates the current political climate. It&#x27;s absurd to think that they would have that kind of power, but that aspect of it is probably harmless in the long run; I think the bigger concern is how this statement can be used and incorporated as a bigger vision for governance that appears to address fundamental problems with the way our economy is run without actually addressing them, much the way a focus on plastic straws lets people feel like they&#x27;re addressing ocean plastic without actually addressing it.
musicale将近 6 年前
I&#x27;ve never been a fan of the idea that &quot;the company&#x27;s only purpose to deliver value to its shareholders.&quot;<p>So I&#x27;m glad that they call out additional stakeholders and put customers and employees at the top of the list. Customers who are willing to pay for some useful good or service and employees who are willing to do a good job delivering it also seem like pretty essential ingredients for a successful business.<p>Externalities are a real thing, so I&#x27;m glad they mentioned local communities and the environment.<p>However, there may be external effects on global communities as well. For example, Facebook delivers value to its customers (advertisers) but causes harm to Facebook users.<p>There are also companies that harm their customers directly, in spite of customers paying for the &quot;value&quot; that they deliver.
zemo将近 6 年前
So many of the reactions seem to be &quot;I don&#x27;t believe it, they don&#x27;t care, they&#x27;re evil&quot;, but that doesn&#x27;t strike me as being particularly useful or realistic, because it misunderstands one very important fundamental human dynamic: the vast majority of villains think that they are the hero. Much harm is caused by those that don&#x27;t understand that they are harming others. Many that knowingly do harm think that their doing harm serves a higher, more important purpose that, in fact, demands they continue that pattern of harm. Leaders of all stripes do things that are harmful, believing that the ends justify the means and that they are in fact doing good by doing harm.<p>This statement helps empower employees to say to illustrate to their corporate leadership that they are not, in fact, doing such a great job of being good guys. I have personally gone to managers that I work for and said &quot;I think we need to invest in our employees more&quot; and been told &quot;we&#x27;re not in the business of growing our employees&quot;. I&#x27;ve had managers that state that have demonstrated wanting the things that I want but refusing to act on those wants because they believe that those wants are selfish and immature, and that acting counter to their actual desires is a form of discipline that serves a higher purpose. Many believe this is good management like making your kid eat their vegetables in spite of their protest is good parenting.<p>For example, I have been in positions where I wanted to move on from old technologies and reported to engineering managers who also wanted to move on from old technology. I&#x27;ve even seen them demonstrate this by learning the newer tools and building side projects with them. Those same managers still could not be convinced to go to bat for the newer tools because they do not believe that they have a mandate to help their employees grow. I&#x27;ve personally seen leadership and especially middle managers make decisions based solely on the statement of shareholder value and ask how, for example, modernizing tooling helps shareholders.<p>This document strikes me as incredibly helpful to workers in the position that want to advocate for their own career growth. If you agree with these principles, do not look on it with skepticism. Instead, view it as a tool in your own arsenal that you can use to advocate for positive change in your own org.
Bhilai将近 6 年前
I wonder if this is in response to a common narrative (by politicians) that corporate America is essentially screwing everyone and has gained immense control over every aspect of life.
cestith将近 6 年前
This has been a long time coming. Short term profits as the only goal has been destroying the market rather than serving it. It&#x27;s time to make lasting investments in pooling capital, human ingenuity, and goodwill to build corporations that can stand the test of time.<p>It remains to be seen how seriously this will be taken and how closely companies will follow it. However, giving any benefit of the doubt makes this likely the best news we&#x27;ll hear about anything for some time.
socrates1998将近 6 年前
This seems like a good step in the right direction. I think what really needs to change is the legal system. There is way too much protection of corporations via liability.<p>It&#x27;s so easy for corporations to completely screw over the public, make a lot of money, then go out of business when they public wises up to it.<p>There are tons of examples throughout America of this. Mining companies are probably the worst.<p>The legal system needs to catch up this.
kolbe将近 6 年前
This is a wonderful opportunity for entrepreneurs.<p>While Larry Fink pushes his social agenda on the companies he controls, leaders of private companies, whose stock is largely owned by investors with &quot;skin in the game,&quot; will flourish.
bdowling将近 6 年前
The purpose of a corporation is to allow passive investors to own part of a business and share in its profits without risking more than their investment.<p>That&#x27;s basically all there is to it.
theandrewbailey将近 6 年前
Am I the only one who noticed that there are no references to &#x27;consumers&#x27;? There&#x27;s plenty of &#x27;customers&#x27;. I&#x27;d like to see more of that, too.
评论 #20739510 未加载
wanche112将近 6 年前
This is terrific move by the CEOs. Why most of Hacker News readers are so synical about the statement. It is true that at the end, CEO&#x27;s fundamental purpose is still on generating values to shareholders. But this statement signals a change in its way to achieve it: focus on customer, and employees with long term perspective, instead of short term stock market gain. The statement says CEO can do actions that can be harmful to stock, but still do it for the benefit of customers and employees, because they believe in it is good for the long term and us economic as whole. I see this is very positive statement.
评论 #20740601 未加载
raygelogic将近 6 年前
this is significant when you consider historical context. this was a common view held in the 50s, but over time, maximizing shareholder value over all stakeholder value became the dominant concern. it&#x27;s good to see the intent swinging back. sure, it&#x27;s just words right now. when we see worker salaries grow to take up a larger piece of the pie, we&#x27;ll know they mean it.
SantalBlush将近 6 年前
Are they trying to get ahead of government regulation with this? It looks like a declaration of self-regulation to me.<p>If they really intend to switch gears and prioritize other stakeholders, that may require some enforceable agreements among them to prevent competition from causing a race to the bottom, and I wonder if such agreements would be legal.
评论 #20738662 未加载
评论 #20739132 未加载
评论 #20738669 未加载
OliverJones将近 6 年前
This statement is a valid response, half a century on, to this statement by one Milton Friedman that the social responsibility of the corporation is to shareholders alone.<p>It&#x27;s worth reading Friedman&#x27;s September 1970 article. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20060207060807&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.colorado.edu&#x2F;studentgroups&#x2F;libertarians&#x2F;issues&#x2F;friedman-soc-resp-business.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20060207060807&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.color...</a> It&#x27;s been around since shortly after the UNIX epoch!<p>It&#x27;s wise to read critically the motives of some of originators of the Business Roundtable statement. Nevertheless it&#x27;s an important response to the Friedman Doctrine. If businesses like Jamie Dimon&#x27;s even consider adopting it, it&#x27;s a consequential change.
CivBase将近 6 年前
In what way are businesses incentivised to act on this statement?<p>(genuine question)
评论 #20741660 未加载
jfig将近 6 年前
i stopped reading at &quot;all americans&quot;
ptah将近 6 年前
they must all feel good about themselves now as they return to business as usual the very next day
koonsolo将近 6 年前
As a business owner, I was already scared that they would reveal our unfair advantage. Good thing they do as usual, and keep the focus on non relevant things that keep the masses pleased. Pfew!
a3n将近 6 年前
&quot;Shareholder value&quot; will always be prime, when the CxOs, drivers of corporate direction, are major shareholders.
dev_dull将近 6 年前
Corporations are just people, the same as countries are just people. To think that they operate apart from the decisions of their leaders and members is just silly. There aren’t “good” and “bad” corporations. There’s good and bad leaders and members.<p>I feel like there’s a strong shift happening in the US away from personal affect and responsibility and shifting it into legislative and corporate policies. The self is out of the equation.<p>The strongest manifestations of this (to me) are the perceived hypocrisy of proponents of this change. For example believe everyone should pay more in taxes without voluntarily paying more than the minimum themselves. Insist on inane doomsday climate predictions but also fight vehemently against nuclear power and jet travel for vacations without a care. List goes on.<p>Our problem as a society always seems to be those pesky other people and never ourselves.
评论 #20738972 未加载
mempko将近 6 年前
People are misunderstanding the purpose of this statement. Everyone is saying it doesn&#x27;t have legal teeth. This is true. But that&#x27;s not the point. The point of this statement is to signal to the public, that the wealthy are ready to give them what they want and understand that the inequality is unsustainable. They are prepared to make concessions now and it&#x27;s up to the public to take them.<p>IMO This is basically a &quot;Go vote for Bernie Sanders&quot; nod from the wealthy. None of them would say this so directly, except a financier like Asher Edelman, who explained how his economic policies would lower inequality and increase the velocity of money.<p>Read Ray Dalio&#x27;s Why and How Capitalism Needs to be Reformed <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;economicprinciples.org&#x2F;Why-and-How-Capitalism-Needs-To-Be-Reformed&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;economicprinciples.org&#x2F;Why-and-How-Capitalism-Needs-...</a><p>If you want some accurate reporting, go read the financial and business press. Turns out business people kind of need to know what is going on to do their job and are willing to pay for good news reporting. So if you want &#x27;just-the-facts&#x27; reporting, the business press is pretty good.
评论 #20739120 未加载