> 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