The problem is our investment economy that focuses only on the stock prices continually going up. It’s literally an unsustainable system.
If a CEO puts their personal safety over the investors, the company gets a new CEO.
They’re not the one really making the worst decisions, they’re the ones who agreed to take a shitton of money to be the face of the company and take all the blame.
CEOs don’t get paid for the work they do, they get paid to be the fall guy.
Still absolutely shit people who deserve zero sympathy, but they’re not the real problem, just a symptom
The problem is our investment economy that focuses only on the stock prices continually going up. It’s literally an unsustainable system.
Yup, this is the problem right here. Investments are supposed to generate returns, that’s the whole point. But Milton Friedman and Jack Welch decided that the sole mission of any company was to increase shareholder value, and the rest of the world rolled with that. So whenever these CEOs point to their Mission and Vision statements, unless they say “Our only priority is delivering returns to our Shareholders”, they are lying.
Economist Milton Friedman introduced the Friedman doctrine in a 1970 essay for The New York Times, entitled “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”.[5] In it, he argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders.[6]
Meanwhile, we’ve decided that these corporations are people. Psychopaths who have no moral responsibilities to anyone but their shareholders, but people nonetheless.
Thus our efforts to make social justice a core condition for profits: fuck people over and get a boycott or protests or a label in media as toxic, and lose customers.
It’s not going well, as a strategy. It requires an educated populace.
I mean, every economic model out there “assumes rational actors,” which I’ve always taken to mean informed and educated. Too many of the masses are neither.
If a CEO puts their personal safety over the investors, the company gets a new CEO.
How many times will they be willing to get a new CEO before they make changes? How many times will someone accept promotion into that position? I wouldn’t take Brian Thompson’s job for any amount of money right now, would you?
How many times will someone accept promotion into that position? I wouldn’t take Brian Thompson’s job for any amount of money right now, would you?
I absolutely would take the job. I’d do it for a $1 salary even. I would have the power to make sure claims were approved, lower premiums on users, and call out the inequity of private healthcare from the top of the ivory tower. I’d be fired, but not before I was able to make some good happen.
That’s the thing, you wouldn’t have the power to do any of that before you were booted out. CEOs do have a lot of power over the board, and the board has power over the company. The net result is that if the CEO pushes too fast or too radically they get removed before any change occurs. As the poster above said, in situations like this the CEO is paid to be the fall guy; the people who wield the actual power are the board members and the large shareholders. The CEO deserves a chunk of the blame for being the face of the organisation and legitimizing it, but killing one, or even a few, off wont significantly change the direction these companies are headed in.
It’s called “dying of an apparent suicide” and the authorities can find no sign of foul play. It’s so sad when this sort of thing happens. The company’s thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Fair, but in the context of a company being willing to just replace CEOs every time they have to fire one (or especially when someone shows up to fire the CEO for them, Luigi-style), I think there’s a small number of cycles they would go through before logic would dictate that they need to conduct business differently.
They’d do it on the daily if it makes them more money…
Sure. They’d run a hundred grandmas a day through a woodchipper, each of them clutching a puppy, if it made them money. However, I am quite sure there isn’t a way that replacing your CEO daily, or even often, makes more money. And yes, I understand hyperbole.
I also understand that the impacts on a company of having multiple CEOs shot in a short period of time, or having multiple CEOs come in, try to be decent humans, and fired for it in a short period of time, would have destabilizing impacts throughout any sizable organization. They would run into problems with manpower and staffing, investment dollars, and generally the ability to do business. It would harm morale and reduce efficiency. And probably a bunch of other things I haven’t thought of in the 3 minutes I’ve been typing this.
Because CEOs are a symptom.
The problem is our investment economy that focuses only on the stock prices continually going up. It’s literally an unsustainable system.
If a CEO puts their personal safety over the investors, the company gets a new CEO.
They’re not the one really making the worst decisions, they’re the ones who agreed to take a shitton of money to be the face of the company and take all the blame.
CEOs don’t get paid for the work they do, they get paid to be the fall guy.
Still absolutely shit people who deserve zero sympathy, but they’re not the real problem, just a symptom
Yup, this is the problem right here. Investments are supposed to generate returns, that’s the whole point. But Milton Friedman and Jack Welch decided that the sole mission of any company was to increase shareholder value, and the rest of the world rolled with that. So whenever these CEOs point to their Mission and Vision statements, unless they say “Our only priority is delivering returns to our Shareholders”, they are lying.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value
Meanwhile, we’ve decided that these corporations are people. Psychopaths who have no moral responsibilities to anyone but their shareholders, but people nonetheless.
Thus our efforts to make social justice a core condition for profits: fuck people over and get a boycott or protests or a label in media as toxic, and lose customers.
It’s not going well, as a strategy. It requires an educated populace.
I mean, every economic model out there “assumes rational actors,” which I’ve always taken to mean informed and educated. Too many of the masses are neither.
Exactly. At some point companies need to transition from investment vehicles to institutions
How many times will they be willing to get a new CEO before they make changes? How many times will someone accept promotion into that position? I wouldn’t take Brian Thompson’s job for any amount of money right now, would you?
I absolutely would take the job. I’d do it for a $1 salary even. I would have the power to make sure claims were approved, lower premiums on users, and call out the inequity of private healthcare from the top of the ivory tower. I’d be fired, but not before I was able to make some good happen.
And, in the long term, that wouldn’t even be bad for line go up.
Companies used to invest in their reputation, back when there was that 90% marginal income tax rate.
That’s the thing, you wouldn’t have the power to do any of that before you were booted out. CEOs do have a lot of power over the board, and the board has power over the company. The net result is that if the CEO pushes too fast or too radically they get removed before any change occurs. As the poster above said, in situations like this the CEO is paid to be the fall guy; the people who wield the actual power are the board members and the large shareholders. The CEO deserves a chunk of the blame for being the face of the organisation and legitimizing it, but killing one, or even a few, off wont significantly change the direction these companies are headed in.
If you made too much good happen, you wouldn’t be fired, you’d be thrown off of a moving train
It’s called “dying of an apparent suicide” and the authorities can find no sign of foul play. It’s so sad when this sort of thing happens. The company’s thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Ah yes, apparent suicide with two random, unrelated gunshot wounds to the back of the head
Fair, but in the context of a company being willing to just replace CEOs every time they have to fire one (or especially when someone shows up to fire the CEO for them, Luigi-style), I think there’s a small number of cycles they would go through before logic would dictate that they need to conduct business differently.
They’d do it on the daily if it makes them more money…
What do you think a CEO actually does?
They listen to what high level management says is best, and then just does whatever brings the stock price up fastet disregarding everything else.
There’s a reason they all get golden parachutes. None of them care past the last board meeting
Sure. They’d run a hundred grandmas a day through a woodchipper, each of them clutching a puppy, if it made them money. However, I am quite sure there isn’t a way that replacing your CEO daily, or even often, makes more money. And yes, I understand hyperbole.
I also understand that the impacts on a company of having multiple CEOs shot in a short period of time, or having multiple CEOs come in, try to be decent humans, and fired for it in a short period of time, would have destabilizing impacts throughout any sizable organization. They would run into problems with manpower and staffing, investment dollars, and generally the ability to do business. It would harm morale and reduce efficiency. And probably a bunch of other things I haven’t thought of in the 3 minutes I’ve been typing this.
Yep, we have a word for continual uninhibited growth - it’s called cancer.
I don’t always agree with what you post, but you’re spot on here.