▲ 686 ▼ Bane Mask (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by CatGPT@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works 256 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Janx@piefed.social 40 points 1 month ago (8 children) Companies thinking long-term in 2026!? You're funny... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (7 children) Here's the thing, Warren buffet argumently the best stock market person in history based everything on long term gains. P&g coke a cola etc long term company long term profit invest in them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (5 children) Sure but he was also investing when the stock market was also slightly attached to reality which hasn't been true in a decade at least. It was always gambling but now numbers must go up at all costs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (4 children) That has always been the case and is written into law that a publicly traded company must do anything possible to make more money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 1 point 1 month ago And he's been selling stuff and holding cash because he can't find anything with a sensible price. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (7 children) Here's the thing, Warren buffet argumently the best stock market person in history based everything on long term gains. P&g coke a cola etc long term company long term profit invest in them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] tempest@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (5 children) Sure but he was also investing when the stock market was also slightly attached to reality which hasn't been true in a decade at least. It was always gambling but now numbers must go up at all costs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (4 children) That has always been the case and is written into law that a publicly traded company must do anything possible to make more money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 1 point 1 month ago And he's been selling stuff and holding cash because he can't find anything with a sensible price. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago (5 children) Sure but he was also investing when the stock market was also slightly attached to reality which hasn't been true in a decade at least. It was always gambling but now numbers must go up at all costs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (4 children) That has always been the case and is written into law that a publicly traded company must do anything possible to make more money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrek@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (4 children) That has always been the case and is written into law that a publicly traded company must do anything possible to make more money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 5 points 1 month ago (3 children) It's not actually law and that's just what companies want to be the belief for them behaving reprehensibly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Am I reading this wrong? https://uslawexplained.com/fiduciary_duty permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Garnish2087@fedinsfw.app 1 point 1 month ago Yes, I believe you're interpreting that page incorrectly. Fiduciary duties are law bindings for specific relationships and situations not applicable for all publicly traded companies to all shareholders. I believe you're confusing that idea with the theory of shareholder supremacy that's a claim, popularized by the likes of Jack Welch to support their actions. The background comes from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in 1919 which stated There should be no confusion... A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. and the interpretation has been quite debated. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 point 1 month ago If they didn't, other companies would be more attractive to capital, its how competition works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 1 point 1 month ago And he's been selling stuff and holding cash because he can't find anything with a sensible price. permalink fedilink source parent