Hacker News Reader

According to your logic, a CEO should attempt to destabilize and influence the government's responsibility so they can maximize shareholder value. And guess what, that is exactly what happens in reality. You can't just simplify reality into rules like this because it leads to people using those rules as an excuse to skirt responsibility and make actual difficult decisions.

Correct and this is why regulatory capture is the phase after market capture, to transition into legal monopoly.

In the best interest of the shareholders might reasonably interpreted as, say, not destroying the biosphere. Fiduciary duty is certainly not "maximise profits whatever the consequences".

I would recommend reading about the Friedman Doctrine and the time period where it came about. It is only a theory and not necessarily a good one.