[kaon123]

It is not so simplistically true. This is what Reaganomics will want you to believe. Examples abound of companies that did not prioritise shareholder returns over everything. Companies are organisations that operate within a society and therefore have a role to play to keep that society together.

There are (very limited) lawful structures that try to make this happen, but much more is down to culture. In many (most?) countries it is considered shameful if a company prioritises shareholder value above everything else. I honestly believe the US is an exception in this regard. Unfortunately US culture is taking over.

- And now to go on a complete tangent: In the second part of "The Three Body Problem" trilogy, The Dark Forest, institutions are described that have both an operational officer and a political officer. The navy has an Admiral that decides the strategy, and a political officer that makes sure the Navy does the right thing. The same is then applied to companies. - I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess.

[FredPret]

It’s actually hilarious people still believe more political bureaucracy is the answer. Fortunately, US culture is taking over.

Companies are formed by shareholders to make money in some venture for the shareholders. People can pursue their social objectives through other types of organizations. Perhaps governments that impose regulations and taxes. I myself support moderate taxes and light regulations.

To the extent that companies focus on anything other than money for the owners, it is a failure by the owners to reign in the CEO. The CEO might want to get a fat paycheck for not much performance. The owners want to delegate everything to the CEO. After all, we’re all lazy humans.

[the_overseer]

You know what would make even more money for the owners? People having less rights. Say, working people for 12 hours a day and throw them out when they are no longer as productive as some arbitrary set goal.

So you would have no issue with owners lobbying to change the law so they make even more money, right? As you said, more money is the only goal.

What would you say if it's you who is worked to death? See, everybody thinks they will be an owner, a master if you will in this system. But it's more likely you would be another sla.... ahem... valued employee.

[FredPret]

Your first paragraph is a non-sequitur. Only in a coal mine with pickaxes do more hours equal more profit for me, the investor.

The richest countries all have strong rights, legally and also informally expected rights. The richest companies have confident people who have lots of options, not 12-hour-a-day slaves.

Because nowadays almost all money is made using the mind, so there’s a natural relationship between a higher human development index and my net worth. (I mean I’m a normal human with empathy who also enjoys other people doing well, but even a sociopath could see they’ll make more money in the US than in either a totalitarian state or a government-less state - North Korea vs Haiti).

But all that is besides the point. Companies are single-purpose entities. Like Unix programs - do one thing well. This is very hard, and goals should not be mixed. The one thing is making money for the shareholders by doing X.

For the type of worker protection you would argue for, you need other types of organizations like unions, governments, political parties, etc.

This is why you need capitalism and democracy to make a thriving society.

[lotsofpulp]

> I wonder if this is a model to apply to a capitalist society: Where you have a CEO doing their regular thing, but also a political officer making sure society is not disadvantaged. Hard to pull off without falling into totalitarianism I guess

Who is choosing the CEO and political officer?