> They are legally obligated by their shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other business.
They're not, it's a common misconception: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
They're not, it's a common misconception: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
"Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.) [1] In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors."
"While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
HHS would draw a sharp line between nonprofit corporations (which, HHS concedes, are protected by RFRA) and for-profit corporations (which HHS would leave unprotected), but the actual picture is less clear-cut. Not all corporations that decline to organize as nonprofits do so in order to maximize profit. For example, organizations with religious and charitable aims might organize as for-profit corporations because of the potential advantages of that corporate form, such as the freedom to participate in lobbying for legislation or campaigning for political candidates who promote their religious or charitable goals."
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#OPINION...
While I understand your point in misconception 3 and it is salient, I suspect if Amazon acted in a way where no one could understand their strategy to be profitable it would have serious challenges in execution, implementation and most important 'trust'. I use scare quotes here because trust is very hard to build and if the business as a whole appeared to act in an 'irrational' (read not in a way to maximize profits) I would expect investors money to leave as well.
while the law changes over time I expect a business, organization, organism, etc to act in its own self-interest to survive in the best means possible. If Amazon is following the current tax law (I assume the answer is yes here) then every business is doing the same and will protect its profits in the name of competition. I feel the only solution here (if Amazon not paying taxes is a problem) is to go to the people who design these laws. In my opinion if we were playing a board game and Amazon was a player, they are playing by the rules and our issue is truly with the people who made the laws/rules and not with the player itself, if a board game had loop holes they would be abused (and often are) and the solution is not to point and blame the player, it is to communicate with the game creator and advise on why their rules/laws are not fair to begin with. I am pointing at Amazon because this article is about Amazon, however every business(player) is guilty in acting in their own best interest, guilty of trying to survive and win.
I find this really infuriating to see some of the comments below that appear to deliberately put words in my mouth or opinions and miss the point of my argument and I hope more people will review Paul Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement. essay. While it is not perfect I do believe it is a step in the right direction.
I find myself babbling and may have had far too much wine but I find this response really enlightening but also infuriating at the same time. Surprisingly I find myself thinking of an XKCD comic [0] that I interpret as defending yourself by saying the law allows is the worst defense available. [1]. I admit I pointed out (incorrectly) that they are legally obligated to obtain the biggest profit possible however I think as I said above (meta quote) I expect a business, organization, organism, etc to act in its own self-interest to survive in the best means possible to gain an advantage over preditors, competitors and other external threats (i.e. climate or other non-direct threats)
[1] quote: > (mouse over) I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
all of the above said, I find myself wanted to by you a few coffees/scotchs/wines and continue this discussion for an entire weekend.
I really appreciate your response.