> Just goes to show what happens when MBAs run a product-centric company.
This is what happens when all you think about, all you focus on, is returns to investors. You spreadsheet the shit out of everything.
This is what happens when all you think about, all you focus on, is returns to investors. You spreadsheet the shit out of everything.
- You spreadsheet the shit out of everything.
===
+ You spread shit into everything.> "...In it, he argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."
the demon friedman strikes again.
Which really wasn't a big deal since you could always do business as yourself although you (and not the corporation) also got liability then.
That doesn't mean short-termism at all costs, which is what some people hear when that is said, but it means, say, if you're Disney don't release a string of movies that all lose incredible amounts of money. Or if you do, then senior management needs changing pronto.
People won't know the implications of decisions without regulations to help them. Of course businesses are populated by people, who will try and do the right thing if that's how they are, but that doesn't mean they know what the right thing is.
> No one facet of the structure society is made of can support all of society, there needs to be safety factors in the building materials.
I can't parse this, sorry. Happy to have a read if you reword.
That's a pretty expansive view of government; I'll grant that regulations are one mechanism for communicating the implications of decisions, but to say that people can't know the implications without regulations? That just seems silly to the point that I'm unsure if I'm intended to legitimately engage with that viewpoint; is that your actual opinion?
In reality, as the system for maximizing shareholder value can interact with the system creating the regulations. Thus:
> in practice regulation was often faulty
wasn't a coincidence of a situation, but rather was a direct result of the shareholder-value-maximizing machine working towards the removal of regulations that hindered shareholder value.
If that is misused, the blame lies with the regulation writers. They get to take free money from people as taxes solely so they can be impartial and write good regulations. If they can't even do that, then why give them free money?
Everybody hates corrupt government officials already, but as a society (in the US) we tend to handwave away companies doing destructive self-interested things as "oh of course they do that", when it's not actually something we need to tolerate.
Oil companies in the 70s knowing that they were causing global warming but engaging in a campaign to pretend that didn't exist? Should be jail for the regulation writers, and jail for the oil company execs who signed off on it.
The Sacklers pretending that their special opioids aren't addictive and causing the opioid crisis? Should be jail for the regulators they bribed, and jail for the people at the company who knew.
Cause the 2008 financial crisis by deliberately mis-grading subprime mortgages? Should be jail for everyone who let that fly.
That's interesting. Everywhere I read (including in HN comments) the focus is on lobbyists and not regulation writers. I've never read anyone ever put the blame on the people who were given free money from taxpayer pockets to be impartial experts, and only ever on people trying to advocate for their companies.
> as a society (in the US) we tend to handwave away companies doing destructive self-interested things as "oh of course they do that", when it's not actually something we need to tolerate
I don't believe "as a society" exists :-) It's one's perception of what happens, but wrapped in an impartial-sounding phrase. I've seen far more tolerance of regulation-writers than I would expect. And there is a clear difference between a company (legally) trying to change hearts and minds and regulation writers allowing their minds to be changed for perks.
> Oil companies in the 70s knowing that they were causing global warming but engaging in a campaign to pretend that didn't exist? Should be jail for the regulation writers, and jail for the oil company execs who signed off on it.
Oil companies don't have a legal responsibility to tell the truth about the climate, I think. Also, the understanding of climate has changed quite a lot since then, so even I might go easy on regulators in this instance.
> Cause the 2008 financial crisis by deliberately mis-grading subprime mortgages? Should be jail for everyone who let that fly.
This is a good example of regulation being to blame, though. You'd go to jail if you didn't allow a certain percentage of subprime mortgages[0].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20080928095759/http://www.invest...
Sounds neutral to the layman while legitimizing the "brushing under the rug" of all the sins possible without severe legal recourse. Then promptly followed by some hand waving that really puts the you-know-what in fiduciary, Mr. Potter.
The invisible hand of the market seems to mostly be involved in sweeping problems under the rug.
While not definitive, ChatGPT says that:
> The idea of organizing a group of people to work towards a common goal for profit or mutual benefit has evolved over centuries. The modern concept of a company, with legal structures and formalized business practices, has its roots in the emergence of capitalism during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Whereas the first stock exchange is somewhere between 1300 and 1600: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_exchange#History
Wikipedia doesn't have a history section on it's page for company, but it says this:
> By 1303, the word company referred to trade guilds. Usage of the term company to mean "business association" was first recorded in 1553, and the abbreviation "co." dates from 1769.
You can tweak your definition by the means you'd like, but I think an honest assessment would be at this point to say they were concurrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company#Semantics_and_usage
So your statement seems incorrect. I'm no expert, just curious.
Corporations aren't a free market concept, it's a way for the state to give special protections to certain companies that need it for some prosocial reason.
A short history: https://newint.org/features/2002/07/05/history
Basically, the original idea is, a corporate charter is granted to create a corporation, which acts on behalf of its shareholders (who the government trusts, have some worthy interest in mind).
They can't vote, can't get married, etc.
If you must grow by x% every year, and infinite growth is impossible, you begin shoving more and more low quality ads into your search results, partake in more legally and ethically grey activities, and eventually rupture?
Are there any examples of large corporations that have said, “we make billions in profit each year. We’re going to focus on maintaining that enormous success. We’re not going to focus on growth.” (I can already hear the spreadsheet squinting logic about how growth is necessary for some reason)
And yet, a bad quarterly earnings report will tank a stock...
> Driving the company to failure by relentlessly cutting costs in the name of "growth" is not in the interests of the owners.
Sure it is. They've maximized their personal revenue and now it's time to get out. The sooner the better.
Where is Xerox going to get the money to do R&D to not be obviated? Replace Xerox with any other business.
All the businesses obviated by spreadsheets, mobile networks, smartphones, GPS? Maintaining success is continuing to make bets and moving forward, and bets require money. More money means bigger bets.
Another example, you have two businesses, one with a 5% profit margin (because they feel like 5% is enough), one with a 10% profit margin. The one with 10% profit margin is going to be able to continue renovating the business, upgrading the facility, buying more land, hiring better employees with higher payrates.
What will happen to the 5% profit margin business? Do you think customers will keep rewarding them (assuming the 10% profit margin business is worth the additional marginal cost)? You can insert restaurant, hotel, retail store, etc in here.
Note that having a higher profit margin is not the only way to survive, having a lower profit margin to better compete on price and gain market share is another way too. Balancing the two and delivering the right product at the right price for your customers is the key skill, but it’s a moving target.
That 10% growth rate may or may not be factoring in some externalities that the 5% growth has to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
My point was businesses compete with each other, and money is one of the tools used to compete.
And growth rate and profit margins are not the same.
If you only ever reward investments with high rates of return it leads to atrophy in boring yet essential sectors of the market. Supermarkets, like you mentioned, have a very low profit margin (usually 1-3%). Can you imagine what would happen if no one was willing to invest in a supermarket?
>Note that having a higher profit margin is not the only way to survive, having a lower profit margin to better compete on price and gain market share is another way too. Balancing the two and delivering the right product at the right price for your customers is the key skill, but it’s a moving target.
Some investors will seek a 10% return in exchange for higher risk.
Others will be happy with a 3% return that is much lower risk.
Portfolios will include some of both types of investments depending on goals and risk tolerance.
Further, the best way to grow %x for a long time is to provide quality. Shittification is a short-term strategy.
There are numerous reasons for companies to exist. Off the top of my head I can think of a few. To provide goods to populations. To provide services for populations. To give the owner something to do. To perpetuate themselves. To provide something to do for employees. To do something an individual can’t.
None of these require investors. There are countless businesses that can be started that don’t even require a significant outlay of capital.
On top of that there are differing philosophies that might suggest investors should be last in line for benefits from a business. I could make a strong argument that society allows businesses to exist and as such society should benefit first and foremost. Businesses typically fail to exist without employees, so I could argue employees should come before investors.
Please don’t perpetuate the naive notion that investors are somehow more important than anything else. I am a dyed in the wool capitalist and while I tend to highly value profitability, even I don’t believe shareholder value is some sacred edict.