this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
11 points (86.7% liked)

Quark's

1097 readers
13 users here now

Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!

General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The film has been partially de-Zaslav'd.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So they think it’s better to get a tax write off of half the cost, and sell it to a streamer to cover the other half, than make money and profit with a global cinematic release?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that they "think."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well, I’m not going to assume that every decision made by the senior decision-makers in a company is rational for the firm or for ‘maximizing shareholder wealth’ in the long term.

CEOs and executives may act in their own, or their firm’s short term interests, they can however also get complex decisions entirely wrong. Not to mention tax law can incentivize some sub rational behaviour.

There are enough historical cases of absolutely bad thinking running companies into the ground, with deceptive practices that leave lenders and subcontractors short.

The stock market’s reaction to act against bad management can be tardy.

(I’m setting aside corporations taking responsibility for larger societal benefits here because US SEC norms for publicly traded corporations don’t provide for that the way they are in Canadian or European law. In the other hand, there may be some arguments that some of these actions are anticompetitive, and worthy of antitrust investigation.)