[klyrs]

Sure. Just like TI, HP, and many others killed off their R&D departments because they didn't make direct profits, only ate money and produced ideas that other departments would monetize. Penny wise, pound foolish. Fuck the future, I want my money now.

[eatonphil]

Unless you're indicting the entire Western economic system (which is fair but also not something I'm going to argue about), blaming investors is nonsense. Corporate officers are responsible for having and selling a vision. If these companies got rid of the R&D departments, management owns that, not investors.

[klyrs]

> blaming investors is nonsense.

Pardon my French, but this is bullshit. Activist investors pressuring buzzfeed are directly responsible for their actions. At best, they looked at the orgs under the umbrella and decided that the best move is to axe BFN. Experience tells me that either they're focused on short term profits, or silencing journalists they dislike.

And, yes, this is partly an indictment of the entire western economic system. Rapacious focus on short term profits will be our downfall. This is merely one example of many.

[eatonphil]

I think we can both agree investors are powerful. In the case of Buzzfeed and HP and so on the investors may be more powerful than management.

But I'm saying that no matter what, management is responsible for actions they take.

[manicdee]

Investors are the ones making the decision for higher profits in the short term over long term viability of the company. It is absolutely in the investors, usually profit hungry corporate investors like superannuation or the local equivalent.

Foresight isn’t profitable. Sustainability isn’t profitable. They want next years bonus cheques not a healthy retirement fund.

[HWR_14]

> blaming investors is nonsense. Corporate officers are responsible for having and selling a vision.

That's a strange point to make in a discussion about how investors are pushing management into making the short term decision.