And yet in multiple interviews he says he is not in it for the money.
Saying that you are not in it for the money is becoming like a fashion statement. What’s wrong in saying that you’re in it for both money and passion?
Saying that you are not in it for the money is becoming like a fashion statement. What’s wrong in saying that you’re in it for both money and passion?
One of those things we all know is bullshit but we just pretend not smelling it.
And it doesn't mean the most profitable option will be picked, but it does ensure that easy money is not left on the table, while lots of other money is set on fire in pursuit of the personal interests of director level managers.
Take time to smell the bullshit.
[1] https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...
51% ownership doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the company. It's sort of a main point of a LLC.
There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value.
Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders’ best interest.
If you disagree with what the officers think is the best way to carry out these duties, the courts say your option is not to sue them, it is to invest in a different company.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that for profit means for profit?
You can't even point to successful companies that treat consequences from violating laws or morality as just a cost of doing business and say that forces everyone else to follow suit. What might be good for one company isn't necessarily good for another.
The fact that companies advertising on twitter don't want their products appearing next to far right diatribe is proof enough that considering morality and ethics is important to maximizing value.
LLCs are amoral by design. It can be argued that this amorality can result in good outcomes when e.g. regulated proprerly. But that doesn't make the LLCs themselves moral actors.
Mistaking companies for moral actors results in folly like letting them regulate themselves.
It seems anathema, but it isn't, Zen, arguably, was instrumental in the Imperial Army running roughshod over its enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War , so too with Executives -they simply become instruments of fate itself, it's not they themselves doing it.
That is the problem with the modern era, your actions do not matter your words do... Words have become violence, but actual violence is excused.
If you do not say the "correct words" your actions matter not. inversely as long as you say the "correct words" your actions matter not.