Thanks, this is by far the closest anyone has come to tracking down this so-called law:
In the book "The Corporation" there are number of other quotes, which I cannot find on the net. Here is one from a law professor Janis Sarra (you can find her on the net):
In North America, the best interests of the corporation have been defined as best interests of the shareholders. Courts usually only consider shareholder wealth maximinzation as the benchmark of whether the directors and officers are acting in the best interest of the corporation. Directors and officers are therefore restricted by what has been a very powerful set of court decisions. As long as the best-interest-of-the-corporation principle is taken to mean shareholder wealth maximization, any real initiatives to shift the consideration and decision making to enviromental concerns or other kinds of social equity concerns are going to be very limited. [...] (pg 176.)
It would be intersting to find the actual statues that are in force in state like Delaware, where a lot corporations are based.
Again, please provide relevant code and section where any corporation or company officer is required to do more than act in the company's and shareholder's best interests. Cite the law where *anyone* is "required to increase shareholder value". This is the chimera I chase on Slashdot.
Each state's code is bit different, but all have a similar clauses.
And here is a note about the Ford vs. Dodge case:
Control of the company. During its first five years the Ford Motor Company produced eight different models, and by 1908 its output was 100 cars a day. The stockholders were ecstatic; Ford was dissatisfied and looked toward turning out 1,000 a day. The stockholders seriously considered court action to stop him from using profits to expand. In 1909 Ford, who owned 58 percent of the stock, announced that he was only going to make one car in the future, the Model T. The only thing the minority stockholders could do to protect their dividends from his all-consuming imagination was to take him to court, which Horace and John Dodge did in 1916.
The Dodge brothers, who formerly had supplied chassis to Ford but were now manufacturing their own car while still holding Ford stock, sued Ford for what they claimed was his reckless expansion and for reducing prices of the company's product, thereby diverting money from stockholders' dividends. The court hearings gave Ford a chance to expound his ideas about business. In December 1917 the court ruled in favour of the Dodges; Ford, as in the Selden case, appealed, but this time he lost. In 1919 the court said that, while Ford's sentiments about his employees and customers were nice, a business is for the profit of its stockholders. Ford, irate that a court and a few shareholders, whom he likened to parasites, could interfere with the management of his company, determined to buy out all the shareholders. [...]
You can read the rest here:http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/H enry_Ford.html
Wrong. Some of the indictments against Enron execs are for kiting the price of energy, which hurt the general public. Actions against Qwest are for cooking the books and gouging customers.
You are right. Corporations are limited by laws and regulations imposed by the goverment. So in these cases laws were broken.
Still, while working within exiting laws, the corporation is required to "increase shareholder value", not do public good.
For example, why do SUVs get such lousy gas milage? They could be build with more efficient engines and lighther materials so that gas consumption would be reduced (and hence polution, dependence on oil) - clearly a public good.
Or why are drug companies producing a dozen varieties of Viagra, but not enough medicine to cure malaria?
If you are saying there is a law requiring companies to maximize profits, please cite it. I have been trying to get people making this claim to actually cite the law. So far, nobody has been able to do it.
See the book I mentioned in my post. And here is another reference: Shareholder
Primacy Norm. Then just google.
The initial case was Ford vs. Dodge in 1916 (at the time Dodge brothers were shareholders in Ford).
It seems to me that some (past) executives of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, Arthur Andersen, etc., are paying fines or facing jail time for putting profits ahead of the public welfare.
No. They put their own welfare ahead of the shareholders welfare. They majorly screwed the shareholders.
Why did you put in the sarcasm block? I don't see anything sarcastic about it.
Because this goal is unrealistic for most people (i.e. 99% of people). Just do the math. If you want to live comfortably you need about $100K a year (more if you want to raise children).
How much do you have to invest to have $100K income in dividends? I'm guessing at least one million dollars.
How long do you have to work before you make that kind of money? Plus, you'd have to just save it all and not spend anything. How are you going to do that?
The assumption, that the welfare of the maximum people and the preservation of common resources is always the best course in a free market capitalism is not based on any hard evidence. Facts supports more the opposite view and that companies strive to achieve short term gains at the cost of smaller but sustained long term profits.
Actually, corporations have a legal obligation (under US law) to look after the interest of the shareholders. Any CEO that would put the welfare of the public ahead of profits is breaking the law. (I'm reading this book if you want a reference).
<sarcasm>
What we have to do is to put all our money into stocks, so that when our jobs are outsourced to other countries, we can live of the dividends. These will be very high, as the multi-national corporations will be making record profits.
By then there will be no tax on investment income and we'll be sitting pretty.
</sarcasm>
You don't know shit. The Ad-Hoc beacon is the different from Infrastructure..
Right (I don't know sh*t). However, the idea stands. You should be able to get a wireless network going without a need for an AP (except if you want to route to Internet).
Oh, please show your daughter TNG! Some of my favorite memories growing up were watching TNG with my dad. I remember him comforting me because I was so upset when Picard became Locutis of Borg. (I was 8 at the time.)
Well we will probably work our way to that (she's 12 now). We watched some of the ST movies - particularly "First Contact", since it sets things up for "Enterprise".
Few Halloweens ago she dressed up as "Seven of Nine"...:)
But now, there are hundreds of channels with thousands of shows. The internet is high speed and in the kids' bedrooms. Soccer moms spend every waking minute taking their kids from activity to activity. Kids just aren't interested in Star Trek.
I don't know. My daugther was hooked on ST Voyager when she was about 8 and she is still interested. We've been watching "Enterprise" together since it started and are working our way through the complete Voyager DVDs.
She was attracted by the strong female characters on Voyager (Captain, Belana, Seven of Nine etc).
If you work in software development, this attitude is gonna bite your ass big time, because as your product shows up on kazaa, so your redundancy letter heads your way.
I do work in software development. And if my product showed up on Kazaa it wouldn't make much difference. Our customers pay us for new features and for support. Without the support the software is practically useless.
So when the good musicians give up and find "new jobs" in something other than music, are you really going to enjoy crappy, lo-fi, amatuer music? Remember MP3.com? The one with the business model of giving away music for free? There were some great gems in there, but far and away, most of it was awful. That's what the future of music without payment sounds like.
If you want to see real great musicians working go see a symphony orchestra or visit your local jazz club. Here are people who are working at making music.
The stuff being pushed by the RIAA members is mostly amateur crap that has been "productized" by the "music industry" and marketed to death.
Since when is production of music supposed to be an "industry" anyways? I thought music was art?
There was plenty of music before the record industry and there will be plenty of music after.
Slashdot Mirror
Note the paragraph about fudiciary responsibilities of directors.
In the book "The Corporation" there are number of other quotes, which I cannot find on the net. Here is one from a law professor Janis Sarra (you can find her on the net):
It would be intersting to find the actual statues that are in force in state like Delaware, where a lot corporations are based.
Here is one from Maine: How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
Each state's code is bit different, but all have a similar clauses.
And here is a note about the Ford vs. Dodge case:
You can read the rest here:http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/H enry_Ford.html
IANAL, but I'm not making this up... :)
You are right. Corporations are limited by laws and regulations imposed by the goverment. So in these cases laws were broken.
Still, while working within exiting laws, the corporation is required to "increase shareholder value", not do public good.
For example, why do SUVs get such lousy gas milage? They could be build with more efficient engines and lighther materials so that gas consumption would be reduced (and hence polution, dependence on oil) - clearly a public good.
Or why are drug companies producing a dozen varieties of Viagra, but not enough medicine to cure malaria?
See the book I mentioned in my post. And here is another reference: Shareholder Primacy Norm. Then just google.
The initial case was Ford vs. Dodge in 1916 (at the time Dodge brothers were shareholders in Ford).
It seems to me that some (past) executives of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, Arthur Andersen, etc., are paying fines or facing jail time for putting profits ahead of the public welfare.
No. They put their own welfare ahead of the shareholders welfare. They majorly screwed the shareholders.
Because this goal is unrealistic for most people (i.e. 99% of people). Just do the math. If you want to live comfortably you need about $100K a year (more if you want to raise children).
How much do you have to invest to have $100K income in dividends? I'm guessing at least one million dollars.
How long do you have to work before you make that kind of money? Plus, you'd have to just save it all and not spend anything. How are you going to do that?
Very few people can make this kind of money..
Help reduce the cost of labor by providing healthcare insurance for example. This article was in today's NYT: Carmakers in for a long haul paying healthcare.
I bet you those workers in India do not get health insurance from their companies - the goverment provides it.
Actually, corporations have a legal obligation (under US law) to look after the interest of the shareholders. Any CEO that would put the welfare of the public ahead of profits is breaking the law. (I'm reading this book if you want a reference).
<sarcasm>
What we have to do is to put all our money into stocks, so that when our jobs are outsourced to other countries, we can live of the dividends. These will be very high, as the multi-national corporations will be making record profits.
By then there will be no tax on investment income and we'll be sitting pretty.
</sarcasm>
Walk into someone's office: "Computer! Format C:"
You don't need cable. Use Wireless networking....
True. But they do pay dearly for the priviledge. And only a small number of songs actually make it to radio play. See this Salon article
Instead they could get one million listeners for free, using P2P channels.
It does not make sense....
Actually you can hear a song for free in many other places (i.e. radio, TV). But how about this scenario:
No one downloads the song via P2P.
Radio plays it once. 10,000 people hear it.
Ten people buy it.
Instead of:
Million people download it via P2P.
Thousand people like it, so the they buy it.
Not to mention that it cost $100,000 to get it played on the radio in the first place.
Right (I don't know sh*t). However, the idea stands. You should be able to get a wireless network going without a need for an AP (except if you want to route to Internet).
Then you don't need wifi access points.
Well we will probably work our way to that (she's 12 now). We watched some of the ST movies - particularly "First Contact", since it sets things up for "Enterprise".
Few Halloweens ago she dressed up as "Seven of Nine"... :)
Please, let him speak of his record of handling the economy and national defense.....
Why don't you start and outline his achievements?!
I don't know. My daugther was hooked on ST Voyager when she was about 8 and she is still interested. We've been watching "Enterprise" together since it started and are working our way through the complete Voyager DVDs.
She was attracted by the strong female characters on Voyager (Captain, Belana, Seven of Nine etc).
She's never seen the original ST or even TNG.
Everyone knows that 76.34% of all statistics are made up.
I didn't say that. I just said that our customers pay us to get support and regular updates...
I do work in software development. And if my product showed up on Kazaa it wouldn't make much difference. Our customers pay us for new features and for support. Without the support the software is practically useless.
If you want to see real great musicians working go see a symphony orchestra or visit your local jazz club. Here are people who are working at making music.
The stuff being pushed by the RIAA members is mostly amateur crap that has been "productized" by the "music industry" and marketed to death.
Since when is production of music supposed to be an "industry" anyways? I thought music was art?
There was plenty of music before the record industry and there will be plenty of music after.
Everyone knows that low power radio transmissions are lethal. No one exposed to them lived past 110 years!!!!
Not technically correct. It's up to the creator of the copyrighted work to decide how his work is to be distributed.
So, for example, I own the copyright on my writing in this post, but I'm giving you permission to share it on any file-sharing network. :)
If you don't want to spent $10... :)