Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Occupy Newt's Brain"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=Anonymous][quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=takoma]But, in essence, the argument is that it is reasonable that the prime directive is investor profit, not productivity, and certainly not worker welfare.[/quote] Corporate amorality: it's not just a good idea; it's the law! I mention this a lot b/c even most on the left forget this key point. No one is really arguing for corporations to care about nothing other than profit, b/c they won that argument long ago. For-profit corporations must consider no end other than shareholder profits. They are enormous amoral creatures that we create and set loose in our economy, and give Constitutional rights to boot.[/quote] This isn't true at all, actually. Corporate directors have extremely wide latitude to manage their business as they see fit under the "business judgment" rule. That's hornbook corporate law. There is simply no legal requirement that "For-profit corporations must consider no end other than shareholder profits." To be sure, this is not unlimited--if say Exxon decided to sell all of its assets and give the money to charity, it would be illegal--but that is a far cry from saying that corporations are legally required to act in amoral ways That is not so. [/quote] That's not what the BJ rule says. That's just a burden of proof rule, basically. It makes it harder to prove that a director breached, but it doesn't change the fundamental duty. The BJ rule makes it harder to show that an action apparently against the shareholder's financial interest in fact was, but if a director announces that he took an action he knew to be against the corporation's financial interest, he admits his breach of fiduciary duty. Do you contend that a director can, within the law, intentionally sacrifice the shareholders' financial interests to some other cause and not be liable? (Note that this is not the same as a short-term sacrifice, e.g. donating to charity in the interest of PR.) [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics