Nothing in that article says you're obligated to maximize profit, and you're not:

> To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Executives are free to pursue near-term profit at the expense of everything else if they choose, and the shareholders are free to replace them if they don't. That's a choice by those executives or shareholders though, not an obligation.

▲

ktm5j 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

I said it's their biggest priority, not their only priority... solving a problem that doesn't cost money and the solution doesn't make money is bottom of the barrel. Come on guys, be real.

	▲	usefulcat 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		FWIW I totally agree with that. What I (and several others) disagree with is the idea that the concept of fiduciary duty confers an obligation to pursue profit at the expense of all else. Is there an incentive to do that? Yes, or at least it's obviously quite possible. But is there an obligation? No. Relative the comment you were responding to, it sounded like you were defending the idea that an obligation exists.