586
Trump gave top US firms staggering tax cuts, with some paying $0 or less – report
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
586 points (98.7% liked)
News
23296 readers
3802 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And how is our current system not already an extreme version of this???
Shareholders aren't the same as stakeholders. Shareholders are always stakeholders, but stakeholders aren't always share holders.
Stakeholders are people with any kind of interest in the company doing well, this includes people like employees, suppliers, and customers. Basically anyone that benefits from a business doing well.
I feel like he might be arguing for the kind of change that the current "anything to keep the stock price going up so the shareholders stay happy" model desperately needs.
Probably a bunch of lipservice to keep shareholders happy by addressing risk that they all foresee....namely the shifting temperament towards large corporations by the people who's value is being stolen for shareholders gains.
Soundbites over substance is the name of the corporate PR game.
It's so nuts...
Speaking to shareholders, about 'shifting' the model, in an open and public medium.
He's literally talking to people who want their money to grow, about changing how the money grows....if you read between the lines it's basically
"Hey we know this is a growing concern, here in the c-suite we see it coming too. Rest assured, we're going to pander to public sentiment so our shareholder profits remain intact. Our hope is that in doing so we attract more talent to exploit thereby maintaining that upward trajectory we all know and love.
Remember 'unlimited PTO'? Yeah, we'll give these guys the same treatment."
But because these statements are public as are the financials etc, they won't just outright say it. I'll bet you quarterly and annual filings have the same type of stuff in the section disclosing current and foreseeable risks.
I'd say you're probably right about that, especially considering that's the CEO who's building a doomsday bunker with a flammable moat, right next to zuck in Hawaii.
The modern CEO has been bred to appease the shareholders, but not any shareholders...just the ones with enough skin in the game and enough influence/power to destroy lives, CEOs included.
The game is fully rigged, the only ones who have any real free will are the hedgefunds and investment houses. Keep those entities happy and your little company thrives.
As a CEO, you're just the colonial general sitting in the big house exploiting a workforce and shipping the value/profits back to the homeland.
Just look at Bezos...ex hedgefund guy builds digital platform to buy/sell books, and then AWS happens, and then literally thousands of brick and mortar stores close down giving amazon a monopoly in lots of regions. Visionary entrepreneur my ass...modern day colonizer and profiteer is closer to the truth.
Bezos will be a trillionair in this decade, his shareholders basically have a infinite money supply, and like Walmart; Amazon employees are getting their hands chopped off because they didn't produce enough rubber for the King/Queen/HFT-Firm
Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that -- it's not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.
A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.
At least that's the theory. It shouldn't be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they're actually doing.