[gumby]

> Publicly traded companies only have one allegiance. Shareholders.

That's not a law, just a moderately recent convention: Milton Friedman in the 70s claimed that a company existed only for the good of its shareholders. And of course we've seen examples of this attitude from time immemorial.

But remember the famous 1950s quote from the then CEO of GM: "what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” People usually twist it around the other way and claim that the company was saying it was more important than the country, but that's not what Wilson said. He made that statement as part of a speech (congressional testimony IIRC) saying that business needed to serve society.

[catchnear4321]

So a quote from 70 years ago, shortly after WWII. Important time for returning to something like normalcy after the war. Put our boys to work.

But every publicly available statement made by a CEO is PR. Like it or not. Not always done with that intent, but usually with it in mind.

Sure, the impact to employees has been felt more recently. But the attitude has been there before they were companies and employees. Kingdoms and subjects, plantations and slaves, whatever the case may be. Very old. This is just the latest skin. There’s always those parties that go against the current.

So to respond to your CEO reference, I’ll throw out a more modern one. I’m having to go on what little I’ve gathered from the media, but Dan Price seems like the real deal. Even with what I said above. Can’t know, but the look is good. I buy it. I want to believe, even after learning I shouldn’t.

Good companies can exist. Good people exist, and can lead companies. All of which can serve society, and benefit all individuals.

“Can” isn’t enough. And there are far too few that ARE.

[gumby]

That is a very famous, widely discussed (and widely distorted quote) not some random comment.

And your example reinforces my point. There is a sickness that spread from the Reagan era, but recognizing it is crucial to treating it.

[catchnear4321]

The quote was contextual to the time.

But the problem did not start in the Reagan era. It simply evolved. And it still does. Recognizing the problem is critical. I don’t believe you have. Not that I’m claiming any different of myself. I’m ok with that personally.

I keep scratching my head on the insistence of many that we should look backwards for the advice on how to go forwards. Look backwards to see mistakes, sure, but this seeming obsession with the words of powerful men, typically long dead ones, a quote from a CEO, a political book, a religious one, the medium doesn’t matter nor does the subject.

But there’s always a wise dead guy that needs consideration. If not more.

It is puzzling to me.

[colinmhayes]

No. Companies being beholden to shareholders is absolutely a law. The shareholders own the company after all, they can fire anyone at the company they want.