And Google has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, basically guaranteeing this type of behavior
This is simply not true. Per the us Supreme Court, “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”. On top of that, even if the standard did apply, doesn’t ensuring the long term interests of a company provide more total profit? Maximization is an inherently difficult standard to enshrine in the law.
Yeah that is technically true in that the law doesn’tsay that verbatim, but long term profitability is the goal since that is what is in the best interest of shareholders. The actual language is:
Duty of Obedience - basically CEO needs to do what the board and bylaws dictate
Duty of Information - don’t mislead shareholders
Duty of Loyalty - put shareholders’ interests first. Meaning long term profitability
Duty of Care - make business decisions with necessary forethought and planning, don’t be negligent.
This is basically interpreted as ensuring the long-term financial success of the company. Long term financial success = maximizing profit. Profit allows you to expand and make more profit. Therefore profit is the primary goal.
Saying profitability isn’t what the law dictates is sort of like “civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights”. To do what? Own slaves. “A public corporation’s fiduciary duty to investors doesn’t mandate profit-seeking, just acting in their best interests.” And their best interests are…? Profitability.
You started by claiming maximizing short term profits was required and now you are claiming maximizing long term profits are required. On top of that you keep claiming profitability has to be maximized even though that isn’t stated anywhere. While you may insist on hallucinating standards that don’t exist it isn’t even possible to determine if any action maximizes profitability.
This is simply not true. Per the us Supreme Court, “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”. On top of that, even if the standard did apply, doesn’t ensuring the long term interests of a company provide more total profit? Maximization is an inherently difficult standard to enshrine in the law.
Yeah that is technically true in that the law doesn’tsay that verbatim, but long term profitability is the goal since that is what is in the best interest of shareholders. The actual language is:
Duty of Obedience - basically CEO needs to do what the board and bylaws dictate
Duty of Information - don’t mislead shareholders
Duty of Loyalty - put shareholders’ interests first. Meaning long term profitability
Duty of Care - make business decisions with necessary forethought and planning, don’t be negligent.
This is basically interpreted as ensuring the long-term financial success of the company. Long term financial success = maximizing profit. Profit allows you to expand and make more profit. Therefore profit is the primary goal.
Saying profitability isn’t what the law dictates is sort of like “civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights”. To do what? Own slaves. “A public corporation’s fiduciary duty to investors doesn’t mandate profit-seeking, just acting in their best interests.” And their best interests are…? Profitability.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/fiduciary-duty-to-investors
You started by claiming maximizing short term profits was required and now you are claiming maximizing long term profits are required. On top of that you keep claiming profitability has to be maximized even though that isn’t stated anywhere. While you may insist on hallucinating standards that don’t exist it isn’t even possible to determine if any action maximizes profitability.
That just means the judiciary won’t punish you, but the shareholders certainly will.
Yet another justification for enabling psychopaths.