[mullingitover]

>Apple and the rest of the MNC's are never going to admit this has a cost to America but it does. All they are saying is we have a legal right to do it.

And if they have a legal right to maximize their profits under the law in this way, one could argue that they have a duty to their shareholders to do it. The problem (for society) is that corporations' primary duty is to maximize shareholder value, and not to benefit society. If a corporation has a choice between doubling their investors' money or curing cancer, they have a duty to choose the former.

[Sven7]

And that is wrong.

Just as medical insurance companies cannot deny you insurance and lets you die just because it dents their profit. Lots of people had to stand up and say that is wrong for the law to change.

Just as Switzerland has changed its laws to stop protecting personal income tax evaders. Why did they do it after decades of benefiting from it? Because lots of people stood up and said it was wrong. Public opinion about the swiss swayed the debate.

This debate is hardly about Apple. Its about something much bigger. It's about making people think about what is right and wrong. If you allow people to just hide behind what is currently acceptable they will happily never make that choice.

[mullingitover]

It seems reasonable on paper, but good luck getting entrenched powers to agree to eliminate fiduciary duty for officers of the corporation. It's one of the fundamentals of modern business. The argument against will be simple: investors are free to use the profits from the corporation for whatever charitable purposes they see fit, and it's not the officers' place to determine what the 'positive social impact' should be.