"[..] but I have to confess that it seems odd to me to denounce Nazism out of fealty to shareholder value. You can just denounce Nazism because you're not a Nazi! This is a financial newsletter, but I have never assumed that the operations of capital are autonomous and self-executing, or that executives are robots who are programmed to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other considerations. Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope."
> I have never assumed that the operations of capital are autonomous and self-executing, or that executives are robots who are programmed to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other considerations.
But that is how it works, right? If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted, if you don't where others do you will lose in the marketplace and cease to exist. Isn't that competitive ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
> Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope.
Citation needed, I guess. For mid-small size companies this might be the case, but evidence seems to point to the opposite of this for any organization large enough to be its own thing outside of the humans and subsystems that comprise its pieces.
But that is how it works, right? If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted
Depends on what you mean by "maximize," since "shareholder value" is a matter of opinion. Some might make the case for short-term rises at all costs, while others take a longer view of "value." In between are a lot of experts and self-proclaimed experts.
> If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted, if you don't where others do you will lose in the marketplace and cease to exist.
In theory, there is nothing logically inconsistent about a CEO both advocating for a better society and protecting shareholder value. Indeed, the former can sometimes help achieve the latter. If your country becomes Venezuela, that's not going to do your stock price any favors.
In practice, it doesn't matter. For better or worse, it is basically impossible to definitely measure the effectiveness of a CEO. Board members use their best judgement and the limited data they have.
You can be ousted whether or not you maximize shareholder value, as no one knows if you did or not. CEOs work for a board and that board can fire them for, in practice, any reason they want to.
In turn those board members work for shareholders that can choose them for any reason they want.
> Isn't that competitive ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
I wouldn't guess so, no. I would guess people more like the effect of said competitiveness, which is an efficient market with lower prices and more stability than the other systems that have been tried.
> Citation needed, I guess.
Basic reasoning? Corporations are tightly interwoven with society. Their customers and employees are all members of said society, for one thing. Burning society to the ground is not going to work out well for any corporation.
He's both smart and witty. He rarely just states an opinion, but usually concerns himself with subjects where he struggles to believe something with absolute certainty, and instead readily gives the best argument for each side of an argument. He also appears to be a Mensch.
In this case, I chose him because his Goldman Sachs credentials make it impossible to dismiss him as some sort of far-left Antifa lunatic, and because he's making a good case for moral responsibility in business. A case that is widely accepted among actual business leadership, but somehow still stymies the HN crowd, where the shareholder-above-anything folklore was absolutely certain to make an appearance.
I actually just started reading his newsletter a few weeks ago. His writing is akin to the comments you see on Hackernews: insightful, appropriately opinionated, backed up by experience in industry.
He also adds a wittiness that makes reading his material a pleasure.
Might be worth noting that three of those twelve left because they left their jobs with their respective companies, and one in protest of a different matter in Juny. It looks like eight left in the past two days in protest of Charlottesville stuff.
> The President’s Strategic and Policy Forum was conceived as a bi-partisan group of business leaders called to serve our country by providing independent feedback and perspectives directly to the President on accelerating economic growth and job creation in the United States.
This "Strategic and Policy Forum" existed for the sole purpose of promoting the individual company interests... Such as how to best offshore the work-force, pay less taxes, etc.
This backhanded manipulation and dealings did not work on Trump as well as it did on the previous presidents.
So now they are disbanding (as they serve no purpose), and using this moment to attempt to discredit the person they could not manipulate.
One would assume that the White House would meet with corporate leaders, who undoubtedly have interests with regards to taxes and offshore money or labor laws, to find the intersection of interests.
It was already clear that nothing of substance is going to come out of the NAFTA talks, both because nobody in business or agriculture wants it (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-tal...) and because nobody is impressed by Trump anymore: just like the rest of the world, Canada and Mexico have figured out that he's all bluster and folds like a cheap tent as soon as you say "No".
> You can believe that broad common ownership of the means of production can still foster competition, while also thinking that that common ownership should be allocated by capitalist methods.
I don't understand how this would work - anyone more economically versed care to chime in on how you could have common ownership of the means of production that was also distributed capitalistically?
Pension funds do this already to a degree. Everyone pays in, the funds invest in all sorts of things, so everyone kinda owns bits of everything in a capitalist way.
Of course it's obfuscated enough that it's hard to know what you own a piece of, but it doesn't have to be that way.
The weird part is they arent doing it for political reasons, this is to protect the image of their corporation. But we havent been told that. There is so much obfuscation of the truth in politics, I am constantly amazed and dismayed at the same time.
Speaking generally, the board and shareholders would never allow a CEO to sacrifice the stock price for the CEO's morals, unless those morals aligned with the good of the company. Very naive to think otherwise.
Pretty sure that's part of it, but I'm also sure most of these people/ceo's are definitely not closet Nazi's and they definitely don't want another Hitler to rise in America as that would definitely be bad for business...
It's definitely political posturing/virtue signaling to customers. The big gripe is that Trump didn't explicitly call out white supremacists when denouncing hate and violence. The Sheriff explicitly stated that there was violent escalation from both the white supremacists and the antifa crowd. A single member of the white racist asshole group escalated the violence to the next level and someone got killed. I'm on board with explicitly calling out the white supremacists, but I think the reaction by the media is eye-rollingly inconsistent. They didn't hold anyone's feet to the fire when BLM killed cops, or antifa has previously escalated to violence. In short, this is fair criticism of Trump, but the scale of the response is kinda ridiculous. But also, I welcome the media to the club. Maybe we'll also get Islamic terrorists called out by their group identity too.
The flak that Trump is getting is not because he did not condemn white supremacist groups, it is because he said both groups are same. One was there preaching the idea of owning other people and violence, the second was there to ask for equality.
BLM and KKK may both be violent, but they are being violent for different reasons. You can condemn the violence without equating them. It is like saying Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar are same because they fought government and went to prison.
Why do people continue to associate Micah Xavier Johnson with Black Lives Matter? He himself stated he was not affiliated with any movements or groups. Why? Well... I know why, but can someone please point me to any documented proof that Micah Xavier Johnson was an active member of Black Lives Matter?
Sigh. "Virtue signaling" has become yet another formerly-useful concept now drained of all meaning because everyone uses it to mean "thing I don't like" (ironically, usually because they're virtue signaling).
Listen up: people, including CEOs, actually can have their own opinions on things. They can decide "hey, I don't want to support this guy who refuses to condemn neo-Nazis". That is hardly an unthinkable prospect.
We're at peak activism today and corporations are the primary targets. My guess is those CEO's were flooded by "concerned customers" who were probably as fake as so many twitter/facebook bots.
The lobbyists never stopped advising. In fact his administration is filled with former lobbyists that are now on the executive branch's payroll. That's one way to drain the swamp.
Readit News
"[..] but I have to confess that it seems odd to me to denounce Nazism out of fealty to shareholder value. You can just denounce Nazism because you're not a Nazi! This is a financial newsletter, but I have never assumed that the operations of capital are autonomous and self-executing, or that executives are robots who are programmed to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other considerations. Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-16/ceos-cons...
But that is how it works, right? If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted, if you don't where others do you will lose in the marketplace and cease to exist. Isn't that competitive ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
> Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope.
Citation needed, I guess. For mid-small size companies this might be the case, but evidence seems to point to the opposite of this for any organization large enough to be its own thing outside of the humans and subsystems that comprise its pieces.
Depends on what you mean by "maximize," since "shareholder value" is a matter of opinion. Some might make the case for short-term rises at all costs, while others take a longer view of "value." In between are a lot of experts and self-proclaimed experts.
If shareholders value not collaborating with Nazis, then not collaborating with Nazis generates shareholder value.
Shareholders as a group have no need to be less good than themselves individually.
In theory, there is nothing logically inconsistent about a CEO both advocating for a better society and protecting shareholder value. Indeed, the former can sometimes help achieve the latter. If your country becomes Venezuela, that's not going to do your stock price any favors.
In practice, it doesn't matter. For better or worse, it is basically impossible to definitely measure the effectiveness of a CEO. Board members use their best judgement and the limited data they have.
You can be ousted whether or not you maximize shareholder value, as no one knows if you did or not. CEOs work for a board and that board can fire them for, in practice, any reason they want to.
In turn those board members work for shareholders that can choose them for any reason they want.
> Isn't that competitive ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
I wouldn't guess so, no. I would guess people more like the effect of said competitiveness, which is an efficient market with lower prices and more stability than the other systems that have been tried.
> Citation needed, I guess.
Basic reasoning? Corporations are tightly interwoven with society. Their customers and employees are all members of said society, for one thing. Burning society to the ground is not going to work out well for any corporation.
[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=price+of+gold+in+bitcoi...
> Matt Levine says it best:
Is that the really best?
In this case, I chose him because his Goldman Sachs credentials make it impossible to dismiss him as some sort of far-left Antifa lunatic, and because he's making a good case for moral responsibility in business. A case that is widely accepted among actual business leadership, but somehow still stymies the HN crowd, where the shareholder-above-anything folklore was absolutely certain to make an appearance.
He also adds a wittiness that makes reading his material a pleasure.
> "For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/89747827044214374...
How many had already quit and this was just to stop further embarrassing himself?
This "Strategic and Policy Forum" existed for the sole purpose of promoting the individual company interests... Such as how to best offshore the work-force, pay less taxes, etc.
This backhanded manipulation and dealings did not work on Trump as well as it did on the previous presidents.
So now they are disbanding (as they serve no purpose), and using this moment to attempt to discredit the person they could not manipulate.
I don't understand how this would work - anyone more economically versed care to chime in on how you could have common ownership of the means of production that was also distributed capitalistically?
Of course it's obfuscated enough that it's hard to know what you own a piece of, but it doesn't have to be that way.
CEOs of large corporations have no problem doing business with china or israel or russia or any other questionable locations.
You don't.
BLM and KKK may both be violent, but they are being violent for different reasons. You can condemn the violence without equating them. It is like saying Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar are same because they fought government and went to prison.
Listen up: people, including CEOs, actually can have their own opinions on things. They can decide "hey, I don't want to support this guy who refuses to condemn neo-Nazis". That is hardly an unthinkable prospect.
Thanks for adding this random made-up idea to the discussion.
Dead Comment