Comment by RoddaWallPro

Comment by RoddaWallPro 2 days ago

I agree that is what he is doing, but I can also justify adding fentanyl to every drug sold in the world as "making it better" from a business perspective, because it is addictive. Anyone who ignores the moral or ethical angle on decisions, I cannot take seriously. It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't. So don't say stupid shit like that, be a human being and use your brain and capacity to look at things and analyze "is this good for human society?".

biophysboy 2 days ago

I agree - I think Ben tends to get business myopia. I read him with that in mind.

Reply View 0 replies

chii a day ago

> It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't.

it is, for the agents of the shareholders. As long as the actions of those agents are legal of course. That's why it's not legal to put fentanyl into every drug sold, because fentanyl is illegal.

But it is legal to put (more) sugar and/or salt into processed foods.

Reply View 13 replies

dozerly a day ago

No, it’s not. The government, and laws by proxy, will never keep up with people’s willingness to “maximize shareholder value” and so you get harmful, future-illegal practices. Reagan was “maximizing shareholder value”, and now look where the US is.

Reply View | 9 replies
- chii a day ago
  
  you have to show this 'future-illegal' action is harmful first by demonstrating harm.
  That's why i used the sugar example - it's starting to be demonstrably harmful in large quantities that are being used.
  I am against preventative "harmful" laws, when harm hasn't been demonstrated, as it restricts freedom, adds red tape to innovation, and stifles startups from exploring the space of possibilities.
  
  Reply View | 7 replies
  
  auggierose a day ago
  
  I can understand that stance. The trouble is, with more power and more technology, more harm can be done, much quicker. This will become a freedom vs. survival issue, and by definition, freedom is not going to survive that.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  WalterSear a day ago
  
  > starting to be demonstrably harmful
  Starting?
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  andrepd a day ago
  
  Yeah, so the shareholder-value-maximisers will bury the studies that link smoking to cancer for decades, using whatever dirty tactics they can.
  What a way to look at the world...
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  [removed] a day ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- breppp a day ago
  
  and if the actions are deemed immoral by society then a few years later you will see regulation, PR issues or legal action
  See early 2000s Google as a model for a righteous company and public perception of it as evil and subsequent antitrust litigation today, or what happened to companies involved in Opioid trade and subsequent effect on shareholders value
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
Andrex a day ago

> it is, for the agents of the shareholders
Shareholders are still human beings and the power they wield should be subject to public scrutiny.

Reply View | 0 replies
BriggyDwiggs42 a day ago

Legality doesn’t define whether it’s good or bad for humans or their society.

Reply View | 0 replies
matkoniecz a day ago

> > It's like saying that Maximizing Shareholder Value is always the right thing to do. No, it isn't.
> it is, for the agents of the shareholders
Even if we care solely only about shareholders, in extreme cases it is not beneficial also for them

Reply View | 0 replies