Political Memes

9824 readers

2315 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

FauxPseudo@lemmy.world

780

Corporate Welfare Queens (lemmy.zip)

submitted 2 weeks ago by favoredponcho@lemmy.zip to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

They're legally required to "maximize share holder value".

That's a lie based on a misunderstanding of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. that's perpetuated as an excuse, but it isn't actually true.

[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is there an article or a video that ELI5s this in context?

Because what the court said was:

A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.

And I am not even remotely fluent in legalese.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I read it:

[Directors are] employed to [further the corporation's purpose of creating profit for the stockholders]. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of [how to create that profit]. [Their discretion] does not extend to a change [in the goal of creating shareholder profit], to the reduction of profits, or to [withold profits from] stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.

TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation's profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.

[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

So instead of "legally required to maximize shareholder profits" it's "don't intentionally lose or hide shareholdermoney."

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.

Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there's a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter if we think it isn't true since they and the courts do.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Which courts? Got an example?