Comment by chii 2 days 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.
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.
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.
Some say there is a link between calorie consumption and weight gain but we don’t know for sure.
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
Legality doesn’t define whether it’s good or bad for humans or their society.
> > 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
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.