Political Memes

2340 readers

672 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz

161

Won't someone think of the profits? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 4 months ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This shouldn't be directed at companies. They're the ones that are saying this, but that's what they should do. Find the best route for the betterment of the company and its products.

That is why we need regulation from the government. To narrow the path that companies can take to maximize profits and growth. The real problem, and why so many of these maintained traction until they didn't, is when businesses and government intermingle with each other.

We need a separation of corporate and state, just like church and state, for similar reasons. And the church and state one has always been kind of weak, some times more than others. Government should be impartial and fair to all matters, period.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We need a separation of corporate and state, just like church and state

The churches have been actively poking holes in that wall for a century or more.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

Well, one particular religion. They talk about being persecuted while practicing it on other beliefs.

But at least there's something in writing to argue about, whereas I don't know of any rules protecting corporate influence on lawmakers. Maybe there are some limitations on lobbying and money waving, but there's also loopholes. Just the issues of insider trading and other ways to profit from the positions of power shouldn't be possible in an ideal government by the people and for the people.

Likewise on the other side, it shouldn't be possible to just pay a fine and keep breaking existing regulations. There may be a parallel there with the average person and the wealthy - where one goes to jail for something and the other just waves it off because of who they are. Small businesses can't get away with breaking laws like the big ones can. Deep pockets and influence matter, and they shouldn't.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This shouldn't be directed at companies. They're the ones that are saying this, but that's what they should do.

Nah, screw that. The notion that companies "have" to be fucking sociopathic is basically a historical accident caused by a bad (or maybe malicious) inaccurate court transcription. It doesn't have to be that way.

Incorporation and limited liability used to be considered privileges that companies were granted in exchange for providing benefit to the public at large (not just the shareholders). The current situation is absolutely a perversion of the purpose of incorporation and needs to be massively overhauled.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm almost to the point of thinking that we should abandon business altogether. It seems like it's bad for most of the populous as well as the earth's environment. If we only had some sort of fancy calculating machinery that could effectively manage resources.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

We can’t end business, that’d be bad for business!

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

American companies still profit off exploiting cheap labour, it's just overseas now