| ▲ | RoddaWallPro 11 hours ago |
| I agree that is what he is doing, but I can also justify adding fentanyl to every drug sold in the world as "making it better" from a business perspective, because it is addictive. Anyone who ignores the moral or ethical angle on decisions, I cannot take seriously. It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't. So don't say stupid shit like that, be a human being and use your brain and capacity to look at things and analyze "is this good for human society?". |
|
| ▲ | chii 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't. it is, for the agents of the shareholders. As long as the actions of those agents are legal of course. That's why it's not legal to put fentanyl into every drug sold, because fentanyl is illegal. But it is legal to put (more) sugar and/or salt into processed foods. |
| |
| ▲ | dozerly 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it’s not. The government, and laws by proxy, will never keep up with people’s willingness to “maximize shareholder value” and so you get harmful, future-illegal practices. Reagan was “maximizing shareholder value”, and now look where the US is. | | |
| ▲ | chii 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | you have to show this 'future-illegal' action is harmful first by demonstrating harm. That's why i used the sugar example - it's starting to be demonstrably harmful in large quantities that are being used. I am against preventative "harmful" laws, when harm hasn't been demonstrated, as it restricts freedom, adds red tape to innovation, and stifles startups from exploring the space of possibilities. | | |
| ▲ | auggierose 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I can understand that stance. The trouble is, with more power and more technology, more harm can be done, much quicker. This will become a freedom vs. survival issue, and by definition, freedom is not going to survive that. | |
| ▲ | WalterSear 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > starting to be demonstrably harmful Starting? |
|
| |
| ▲ | Andrex 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > it is, for the agents of the shareholders Shareholders are still human beings and the power they wield should be subject to public scrutiny. | |
| ▲ | matkoniecz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > > It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't. > it is, for the agents of the shareholders Even if we care solely only about shareholders, in extreme cases it is not beneficial also for them |
|
|
| ▲ | biophysboy 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I agree - I think Ben tends to get business myopia. I read him with that in mind. |
