View Poll Results: Should the duty by re-examined?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 26.42%
  • No

    39 73.58%
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: The Duty of Corporations

  1. #31
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    that made me laugh.

    what did I say in that post that was wrong?

    As long as the only imperative for a corporation is to make money, there will always be societal problems and fall out. We need new rules for new times and a new paradigm that takes in much more than simple greed fo a corporation or its stockholders.
    Because, I swear, Haymarket, I think you're pretty cool -- even though we don't often agree, especially when talking unioneze. But when I read that, I though, OMG! Now I understand! He's a closet Socialist. Hard to believe I can actually like a guy who's left of left....but there's somethin' aboutcha', Haymarket.

    In fairness, I'd sure be interested in a few of the new rules you might propose...
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #32
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Socialism, as I understand it, is a system where the state owns all resources and attempts to distribute them according to its own determination of what would be most socially beneficial.
    You do realize that's exactly what you're advocating?? Exactly?? Oh! Except the state would just "control" the resources rather than own it. Unless it's GM.
    Last edited by MaggieD; 10-10-11 at 04:33 PM.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #33
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Right now it is understood that corporations have a duty to their shareholders, but not to their employees, consumers, or the remainder of the public (although they of course have a duty to comply with the law, which includes many regulations designed to protect employees/consumers/third parties).

    The clearest example of the warped effects of this is probably the famous case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company.



    When the shareholders sued, the court ruled in their favor, stating Ford's duty was to profit his shareholders, not the community or his employees.

    In light of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest of America, do you think that this idea needs to be re-examined?
    No.

    What's the point of being a shareholder, if your ownership interests aren't recognized?
    It makes no sense.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Because, I swear, Haymarket, I think you're pretty cool -- even though we don't often agree, especially when talking unioneze. But when I read that, I though, OMG! Now I understand! He's a closet Socialist. Hard to believe I can actually like a guy who's left of left....but there's somethin' aboutcha', Haymarket.

    In fairness, I'd sure be interested in a few of the new rules you might propose...
    I don't know about proposing any new rules ... as in laws ..... but I do very much would advocate that every company and employer in the land take into consideration a variety of factors in making decisions over and above the narrow question of maximizing profit.

    Among the thing I would want them to consider is the effect of all their decisions upon society and all those in society and what is good for society and all those in it. I would ask them to weigh the narrow interests of their corporation with the interests of the wider society and all in it and to take all that into consideration.

    There may be business people who do that today. But all need to do it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    02-23-12 @ 04:16 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    791

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    The OP left out a very important sentence from his link, The Court was called upon to decide whether the minority shareholders could prevent Ford from operating the company for the charitable ends that he had declared.

    Basically, the Dodge brothers used 10% of their share to strong-arm Ford. If the Dodge brothers didn't like Ford's actions, then they could have simply pulled their stock out and invested elsewhere. Instead, the minority shareholders used the state to get want they want. Wow, that sounds like some crazy socialism - using the state to force a corporation into an action that they didn't want to take.
    Last edited by Antiderivative; 10-10-11 at 04:46 PM.

  6. #36
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,855
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    You do realize that's exactly what you're advocating?? Exactly?? Oh! Except the state would just "control" the resources rather than own it. Unless it's GM.
    How exactly does eliminating a duty that requires companies to favor one group of people at the expense of others constitute controlling a company's resources? IMO, that's called freedom.

    You are assuming that I am suggesting we reverse the duty. I certainly haven't suggested that, although I left the question open for people who might. I would suggest we leave it up to corporations, and not burden them with the threat of lawsuit if they decide to expand or cut prices. The "that's socialism!" knee-jerk reaction is similar to the liberal "that's racist!" reaction, and worrisome.
    Last edited by Cameron; 10-10-11 at 04:48 PM.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  7. #37
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiderivative View Post
    I lol'd. Who is going to replace him? His incestuous BOD?
    Yes, or the investors will demand there is a change. If not, the investors will take out their money, or they will sue and probably win. This actually happens quite a lot.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  8. #38
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If the shareholders elect a Board who appoints a CEO who has other goals, then that would indicate that either A) a majority of the shareholders disagree that the company's only responsibility is to maximize profits, or B) they have a different opinion of what will maximize profits than you do.

    It sucks if you invested in the company with the understanding that it would maximize your profits, and the company later appointed a CEO with other goals in mind...but hey, changes in management are a risk in any corporate investment.
    2 things to note.

    Henry Ford was the largest shareholder and he had considerable control over the board of directors.
    Those 2 things would limit the power of the other shareholders from replacing him and represents a conflict of interest with the different positions he retained.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #39
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Corporations aren't people. They don't have duties. They're not capable of performing duties. They are, at best, tools for creating money for their owners and employees; they're incapable of doing anything else and it is foolish to expect them to.
    ..which is why corporate personhood needs to be eliminated.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  10. #40
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: The Duty of Corporations

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Right now it is understood that corporations have a duty to their shareholders, but not to their employees, consumers, or the remainder of the public (although they of course have a duty to comply with the law, which includes many regulations designed to protect employees/consumers/third parties).

    The clearest example of the warped effects of this is probably the famous case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company.



    When the shareholders sued, the court ruled in their favor, stating Ford's duty was to profit his shareholders, not the community or his employees.

    In light of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest of America, do you think that this idea needs to be re-examined?
    Sorry but I don't think it is understood that corporations don't have duties to employees, consumers and the public. We cannot start with that premise and have a reasonable discussion. I think the biggest problem we are having right now are with financial corporations which basically move money around as opposed to companies which make and sell products or provide services. I think the latter are more responsible in general. We need to stop lumping all corporations together.

    But sure, I think a re-examination is in order.
    Last edited by jambalaya; 10-10-11 at 05:32 PM.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •