Today's PSA: (because, apparently, this is shocking to people). It's OK for corporations to make less money. It's OK for shareholders to receive less value.

No, they don't have to raise prices on their consumers. No, they don't have to cut wages or benefits. They're choosing to.

If your perpetually ascending profit model only works because you exploit your labor, then your profit model deserves no sympathy, fretting, or hand-wringing.

You can, and should, make less profit.

@Manigarm

And if your business can't keep afloat without exploiting people, that's the "free market" you're always harping about telling you the business isn't sustainable.

@Manigarm There is the problem that corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. For publicly traded companies they will be hearing from lawyers if they intentionally leave money on the table. This problem doesn't go away until the profit motive goes away.

Update: I have been corrected on whether or not that fiduciary responsibility is legally enforceable. Fine. They will still hear from their investors if they intentionally leave money on the table, and the problem still doesn't go away until the profit motive goes away.

@edyother @Manigarm whether shareholders would have a case seems to be questionable:

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

The Shareholder Value Myth

Shareholder-value thinking dominates the business world today. Professors, policymakers, and business leaders routinely chant the mantras that public ...

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
@mmby @Manigarm I can grant that. But I still don't know how a company keeps investors if they're not maximizing profit. Even if not for legal reasons, I don't see how this problem goes away as long as the profit motive is the reason for investing.

@edyother @mmby @Manigarm

I think there's a difference between profit-motive and profit-motive run amuck. If private equity firms have shown us anything, it's that often the things that maximize profit in the short-term threaten the long-term sustainability of the firm.

The whole notion of investment implies the passage of time, so I think there's a legal case that a fiduciary responsibility to investors implies not being super short sighted.

@TonyaCanning @edyother @mmby @Manigarm the whole notion of investment implies profiteering.

Think about it: no business ever gets private funding unless it can convince a group of already-rich people that investing in the business will make those people even richer. The upwards transfer of wealth is woven into the very fabric of our society.

@edyother @mmby @Manigarm shareholders ostensibly invest for share value, which is not necessarily correlated w profitability (see: almost every major tech firm in the last 20 years). in fact, they often invest for a variety of non-financial reasons, up to and including bragging rights.

@edyother that doesn't work the way people think it does. It's absolutely not true that companies can be sued if they don't maximize profit. The legal duty to shareholders is not to negligently disregard shareholder value (such as by not bringing a purchase offer to the shareholders to consider)

Boards can absolutely decide to make less profit on the assumption that sustainable business is better value than short-term growth

The legal duty almost never comes up. The issue is greedy investors that get responsible boards fired and replaced (voted out, not sued). That's the fear that drives the "perpetual growth" mindset.

@Manigarm

@calcifer @Manigarm Fair enough. But if a corporation isn't maximizing it's profits, what incentive do shareholders have to continue to invest when someone else will ruthlessly maximize profits?

@edyother @calcifer @[email protected] of depends on the ethics of who is able to invest...

In the past I have invested in what I thought were socially responsible companies. I saw Phillip Morris making double what my little clean energy picks were doing, but didn't invest in that.

But I'm a normal human being: a small time individual investor simply looking for long term security. I (and I would argue millions of other healthy humans) have mindsets very different from the big (stunted greedy) groups of sociopaths that are the largest players.

I'm mostly out now because I have come to the reluctant conclusion that businesses who go public public rarely stay clean enough for my tastes.

@CJPaloma @calcifer I suspect that we likely agree that "big" investors are less likely to worry about their conscience, or they wouldn't in the position to be able to be a "big" investor.

@edyother @calcifer

yes indeed, but now we're stuck with what to do with these conscience-less folks...who have intentionally blocked so many off ramps to sane policies.

BTW, love your bio, the 0 for 2 description made me laugh out loud

@edyother @calcifer @Manigarm Dividends.

In a stable company, shareholders should receive smaller, but consistent payments from the company's profits.

Big increases in share value should be associated with companies that are either expanding, improving, and creating value, or are startups (and therefore high risk, high reward).

The problem is that the big investors have got used to receiving the returns usually associated with said rapid growth indefinitely, but don't want to bear any risk.

@edyother @Manigarm there are investors who would care about sustainable long-term profitability; they would benefit over a long term with stock price and over the short term with dividends. This used to be the norm!

The problem is that there's an entire investing industry around short-term growth, and they have an outsized influence. They often have the ability to buy so much stock that they can effectively campaign to replace enough of the board to make sure they have a board that will serve short-term growth. It's fucked up. But the idea that the State will enforce that preference through findings of liability is mostly a myth and therefore a red herring.

@calcifer @Manigarm I'm aware that this used to be the norm. I am old enough to remember when this was the case. But even during that time, nobody stopped investing in Phillip Morris because they were killing people. Rich people don't get rich by doing the right thing when there is money to be made.

@edyother @calcifer @Manigarm

Therein lies the problem, and it will not change.

@edyother @Manigarm

There are retirees who bought mutual funds to pay for their retirement & are aghast at the consequences of that decision to their grandchildren.

They wanted a little surplus wealth to go their way, but not the end of the earth as a habitable planet.

There has to be a better way.

Then there's the 750 billionaires who have known the consequences for 40 years and instead accelerated it.

@edyother
Planets have no fiduciary responsibility to their inhabitants but keep them alive anyway.
@Manigarm
@Manigarm I strongly believe we need more small companies. I really love the book "Small Giants - Companies that chose to be great instead of big".

@Manigarm

I just keep wanting to click boost on this over and over

@Manigarm think the problem here is they’re not gonna self-regulate their profits. It always needs to be enforced.
@Manigarm Agreed. Who else, besides you, is saying this in the marketplace?
@Manigarm All this is true and I do patronize businesses that do this, but the fact that some businesses don’t means the ones that do get competed out of the market. We’re by default left with just the hyper-profit-seeking ones. Regulation is afaict the best answer to that.
@Manigarm It SHOULD be OK, but according to Marjorie Kelly in her book The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy, existing law considers it a violation of duty to shareholders to do anything that doesn't maximize the value of their investment. A corporation that chooses to make less profit rather than raise prices or cut wages or benefits can be sued by its shareholders. We need to end shareholder primacy. https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-divine-right-of-capital-dethroning-the-corporate-aristocracy-marjorie-kelly/6893460?ean=9781576752371

@Manigarm

I just reread Chris Hedges/ Joe Sacco’s book ‘Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt’. It is too optimistic about the revolt but right on about the destruction as the corporations continue destroying citizens and the world.

I recommend this book to all.

@Manigarm Perpetual growth makes no sense at all
@Manigarm right on. Pre-Welch, GE put shareholder returns lower in their priority list than corporate citizenship (what a thought!) and taking care of their employees. Welch made high profits the new priority and the rest of the big companies followed suit.
@Manigarm
It should've been okay at the start.

@Manigarm

And WE should stop buying their stuff.....do we really need it?

@Manigarm The usual "excuse" being "but but, we HAVE to make all the money we can for our shareholders"

What they mean when they say that isn't your grandma and her 200 shares, it's the other billionaires who own the bulk of the stock.

It's just a smokescreen for their greed and nothing more.

@nurglerider This post certainly got more engagement than I was ever expecting! And I am a little disappointed in the responses that have, essentially, been the Lite FM version of Trickle Down Economics.

@Manigarm Honestly it doesn't surprise me. We are inundated with capitalist propaganda from the moment we come out of the womb.

Though it is unfortunate that people don't stop and think long enough to realize just how bad things are as a direct result of said capitalism.

@Manigarm Notice they don’t cut the C-suite multi-million dollar salaries/bonuses to return value to the investors…
@Manigarm
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
You are so right!!!
i agree 100%
@Mpossiblethos I was under the impression that companies with publicly traded stocks were required to make as much profit as possible. Not my knowledge area, though. And I do realize this would be something to be changed, not enshrined

@Manigarm

I kinda wish those animated Saturday morning PSA cartoons like "I'm just a Bill" were revitalized and promoted topics like, "Industry regulation is good for society", with a catchy tune, cute narrator character, and everything. I feel like we'd need to start there, with the next generation, after the last 43 years of neocon control skewing everyone's perception of "normal".

@Manigarm This is where government regulations on capitalist markets are needed. Instead we have the opposite, where courts have punished boards that don't pursue profits of investors. The government has done more than abdicate it's responsibility, but become a tool of Wall Street

@Manigarm I know that. You know that. But a business is in business to make money. That's it. that i

s their whole raison d'etre. And the business of a political candidate is to get elected on a party platform, and if elected, to get re-elected.

Again, that's it.

For the rest of us, it's KMAG YOYO. Kiss My Ass Guys, You're On Your Own. No Santa, no Jesus, no cavalry, no white knight.

Just us.

@Manigarm it’s called EARNINGS for a reason.
@Manigarm Shareholders can and have sued companies over stock prices. Ergo, under certain circumstances it’s demonstrably not OK for shareholders to receive less value.

@Manigarm @antonyjohnston

This. A ‘corporation’ does not exist through some natural law. It exists as an entity because society says it can, presumably because society benefits from it. If society *isn’t* benefitting from it, either because it is not making money, doing illegal things, impoverishing it’s employees, destroying the environment, etc, we should revoke it’s right to exist!

@Derekhardwick @antonyjohnston See, this is the "unpopular opinion" people usually come at me for. When I note that none of this is "natural" nor "inevitable." Free Market Economics is a human-made system and structure. In short, the world need not be as it is. It can be different.
@Manigarm @Derekhardwick People even insult smaller concerns as "lifestyle businesses", like that's somehow bad. The whole myth of growth at all costs and profit above all is pernicious.

@Manigarm ... THEY REFUSE TO LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS AND THINK EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BOW TO WHAT THEY WANT OR HOW THEY WANT IT...DICTATORSHIP

TOO MANY COOKS IN THE SOUP ! LOBLAWS Galen Weston dropped CEO for next 3 yrs, because HE knows he is wrong and ashamed of giving himself a 3 MILLION RAISE...

TAKING Government money to do renos again which were also paid for by the government 3-4 yrs ago
JUST WHAT GIVES THERE AND WHO SITS ON HIS BOARDS !!

@Manigarm Similarly, the business model of "Only 10% year-over-year growth?? The company must be failing! Expect massive layoffs" is completely toxic.

It's okay to hold the line, or grow just with inflation.

@thedoh It's a completely bonkers re-definition of "success."
@Manigarm Shareholders should be outlawed and potentially removed from society with force.