▲ 832 ▼ Winning the interview (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by trek32@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Phegan@lemmy.world 104 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 years ago It’s illegal for them to not do what helps their shareholders. This has been repeatedly shown false. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not a legal one. As Tim Apple once told an investor asking about gains on their push for environmental greenness as a company, he told them that if all they want is for the number to go up they should get out of the stock. Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.” https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi permalink fedilink source parent [+] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* Businesses also have wide latitude in how they interpret profit mandate. They're allowed to make purely gut-driven predictions and take huge risks with little evidence on the grounds that a payoff is on the horizon. Tim Cook could blandly assert that environmental greenness does increase profits and then just hand wave in some fuzzy math about hypothetical waste management or non-renewable material costs or public sentiment. And who could argue with him over a 20 year time horizon? You can say whatever you want as a CEO and most people will reflexively trust you simply because you're in a position of authority. permalink fedilink source parent [–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They ARE services. They're not services run for the benefit of the public. I think we all got a little messed up by the few years that journalism had a bit of credibility. For the vast vast vast majority of humans on earth all forms of mass communication have been propaganda for those in power.. I mean look at the Catholic Church for the best modern example permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which few years are you referring to? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wagesj45@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm gonna posit a guess of around 1930 through the late 90's when the internet started eating everyone's lunch for "free". (I am not a news historian and this is purely a guess.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago Oh my, no. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yea it's now an election of the old school vs new school and the passing of the torch. Boomers are going down kicking and screaming permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 years ago It’s illegal for them to not do what helps their shareholders. This has been repeatedly shown false. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not a legal one. As Tim Apple once told an investor asking about gains on their push for environmental greenness as a company, he told them that if all they want is for the number to go up they should get out of the stock. Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.” https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi permalink fedilink source parent
[+] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* Businesses also have wide latitude in how they interpret profit mandate. They're allowed to make purely gut-driven predictions and take huge risks with little evidence on the grounds that a payoff is on the horizon. Tim Cook could blandly assert that environmental greenness does increase profits and then just hand wave in some fuzzy math about hypothetical waste management or non-renewable material costs or public sentiment. And who could argue with him over a 20 year time horizon? You can say whatever you want as a CEO and most people will reflexively trust you simply because you're in a position of authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* Businesses also have wide latitude in how they interpret profit mandate. They're allowed to make purely gut-driven predictions and take huge risks with little evidence on the grounds that a payoff is on the horizon. Tim Cook could blandly assert that environmental greenness does increase profits and then just hand wave in some fuzzy math about hypothetical waste management or non-renewable material costs or public sentiment. And who could argue with him over a 20 year time horizon? You can say whatever you want as a CEO and most people will reflexively trust you simply because you're in a position of authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They ARE services. They're not services run for the benefit of the public. I think we all got a little messed up by the few years that journalism had a bit of credibility. For the vast vast vast majority of humans on earth all forms of mass communication have been propaganda for those in power.. I mean look at the Catholic Church for the best modern example permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which few years are you referring to? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wagesj45@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm gonna posit a guess of around 1930 through the late 90's when the internet started eating everyone's lunch for "free". (I am not a news historian and this is purely a guess.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago Oh my, no. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which few years are you referring to? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wagesj45@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm gonna posit a guess of around 1930 through the late 90's when the internet started eating everyone's lunch for "free". (I am not a news historian and this is purely a guess.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago Oh my, no. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wagesj45@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I'm gonna posit a guess of around 1930 through the late 90's when the internet started eating everyone's lunch for "free". (I am not a news historian and this is purely a guess.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago Oh my, no. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yea it's now an election of the old school vs new school and the passing of the torch. Boomers are going down kicking and screaming permalink fedilink source parent
