NationStates Jolt Archive

It must strangely not ever be enforced because many corporations do not make a profit every year
Because obviously "maximize" and "make" mean the same thing.

Because obviously "maximize" and "make" mean the same thing.
Nice way to avoid the issue. How about quoting one State law that requires maximizing corporate profits?

Nice way to avoid the issue. How about quoting one State law that requires maximizing corporate profits?

I can't find the law by typing "corporations legally obligated to maximize profits" but I get thousands results saying that exact thing. I guess no one references the law because it's like "water is wet."

And I still don't have to answer to people who can't differentiate between two totally different words.

Here you go
Dodge v Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company)

I can't find the law by typing "corporations legally obligated to maximize profits" but I get thousands results saying that exact thing. I guess no one references the law because it's like "water is wet."

And I still don't have to answer to people who can't differentiate between two totally different words.
It's reasonable to assume that a corporation wants to maximize its profit, but it's not reasonable to assume it's a legal responsibility based on a few google hits. But thanks for your legal opinion...Maybe you're confused with the idea that corporations are required maximize their profits legally?

It's reasonable to assume that a corporation wants to maximize its profit, but it's not reasonable to assume it's a legal responsibility based on a few google hits. But thanks for your legal opinion...

The number of sites saying the exact same thing leads one to believe it is accepted fact by people and corporations (if only by the fact everyone else accepts it as fact).

Finally finding a site with a fucking reference led me to the court case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

The number of sites saying the exact same thing leads one to believe it is accepted fact by people and corporations (if only by the fact everyone else accepts it as fact).

Finally finding a site with a fucking reference led me to the court case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
So, unless the shareholders challenge the policy of a CEO with a lawsuit, it's an unenforced opinion. Meaning that every drug company that provides discounted or free drugs to those that can't afford them is operating contrary to that opinion, yet they are well within the wishes of their shareholders.

'Legally obligated' seems a little strong. I don't think the SEC is going to fine Target for donating to Relay for Life, or any other such charitable act.

So, unless the shareholders challenge the policy of a CEO with a lawsuit, it's an unenforced opinion. Meaning that every drug company that provides discounted or free drugs to those that can't afford them is operating contrary to that opinion, yet they are well within the wishes of their shareholders.

'Legally obligated' seems a little strong. I don't think the SEC is going to fine Target for donating to Relay for Life, or any other such charitable act.
Let's again dodge around the meaning of maximize profit to make ourselves look right. But it doesn't matter what I say. You are on of the people who are believes "companies are happy altruistic groups of people!"

Probably because (so I've heard) that you have a lack of doctors...

Here in America we have to pay uber-amounts of money just for... say, an infected toe. I can't go to the doctor for my infected toe, so I have to limp around with an infected toe for another couple weeks till my family can afford to get my infected toe fixed.

:headbang:

I walked around with an ingrown toenail for over a decade because I knew it'd cost a small fortune to fix. Hell if I'd waste a couple weeks pay for something like that.

Whatever research has already been done, if it has any significance whatsoever, will then be published in a journal so that any university professor or post doc could then pursue the matter further (actually, either way it ends up the same - it is a student doing all the actual work). This happens because getting research published is how the scientific community tends to rate people and institutions. Thus even if it will not generate a profitable treatment, but will still be of some benefit, by the time you find that out there is something to publish so it is not a total loss to society.

Or even if it will not end up with a profitable treatment, it could still be further researched by the company for nothing more than bragging rights. You would be surprised how much of a motivation that is in the corporate world.
I see bragging rights motivating researchers. I don't see bragging rights motivating corporations very much as a whole, frankly, they're usually more into the whole money thing.
Fact is that these people made a conscious and calculated decision to forgo health insurance. The "we know better" philosophy isn't sufficient reason to undo that. Some people don't buy life insurance. Do we want to require that too, because we think it's good to have it? Of course not.
Conscious? Not necessarily. ("You mean I don't get insurance with this job? Shit!") Calculated? Unlikely, although it does happen.

You presume a great deal here. Actually, though, I think we can make a case for requiring health coverage, just as we require automobile insurance for drivers - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the cost to the public sector is less in the long run.

And then we're essentially back to either screwing over that particular ~15 million segment of the population, or instituting universal health care.

All the NHS shows right now is that too much management is never a good thing. The NHS has enough funding to be brilliant, it's just the way it's currently run isn't very good; if somebody came in and reformed its management then it would be fantastic. It's not a money problem, it's an organisation problem.

100% totally agree. i hate the view that many right-wingers seem to display of an 'all-or-nothing' view... that this system isn't working perfectly right now so we should scrap it, etc, etc.

the NHS, like the EU or the UN, has problems. any organisation does. always. but those problems do not make these organisations worthless, or not worth pursuing. problems are there to be overcome, and in this case for the public benefit. the ideal behind those organisations is still sound.


in any case, in my view, from the research i've done into the matter, many of the NHS's problems into beauocracy and inefficiency stem from the privatising measures which have carved up and fragmented a system that used to be, at the very least, a coherent whole under its own management.

I walked around with an ingrown toenail for over a decade because I knew it'd cost a small fortune to fix. Hell if I'd waste a couple weeks pay for something like that.

heh, i got mine fixed for £70 (had to pay cos its not a NHS core service, or something), didn't have to wait more than a few days for the appointment, and it included two follow-up appointments to check it was ok :)

had to limp around for a month or two afterwards because of the bigass bandage on my toe though :p

NHS! NHS! NHS!

Gotta love it :)

heh, i got mine fixed for £70 (had to pay cos its not a NHS core service, or something), didn't have to wait more than a few days for the appointment, and it included two follow-up appointments to check it was ok :)

had to limp around for a month or two afterwards because of the bigass bandage on my toe though :p
When I was an ickle baby my dad had an ingrown toenail removed (NHS, of course) and was talking to his mum about it on the phone the night after. I just went and bit it there and then.

Yeowwwww!

When I was an ickle baby my dad had an ingrown toenail removed (NHS, of course) and was talking to his mum about it on the phone the night after. I just went and bit it there and then.

Yeowwwww!

my toes are curling into little frightened balls just thinking about that :eek: :p

Let's again dodge around the meaning of maximize profit to make ourselves look right. But it doesn't matter what I say. You are on of the people who are believes "companies are happy altruistic groups of people!"
No, it's more like "What's good for business is good for America". Anytime you introduce more money into a society, it creates even more wealth. If the climate is good for business, we all profit.

No, it's more like "What's good for business is good for America". Anytime you introduce more money into a society, it creates even more wealth, mostly for established CEO's and major shareholders of corporations. If the climate is good for business, we all profit in a miniscule way, compared to corporate tycoons.

Fix'd.

Fix'd.

We don't all make CEO salaries. I don't want to make the sacrifices, you may not either. So what? A thriving economy makes it much easier to thrive personally, as compared to a depressed economy. And don't forget the large percentage of us that hold stocks and mutual fund shares as a part of our retirement planning. Stockholders aren't a minority of the population.

You think the Government would run healthcare better?

Two words for you: "Walter Reed."

No, it's more like "What's good for business is good for America". Anytime you introduce more money into a society, it creates even more wealth. If the climate is good for business, we all profit.

I see "companies, contrary to evidence and popular belief, are altruistic entities who would never do anything to hurt the general public." You can live it whatever Bizarro world you want, but I don't live there.

You think the Government would run healthcare better?

Two words for you: "Walter Reed."
I addressed that. Combination of our current shitty healthcare system and government bureaucracy. Who said it would be the government's job to run hospitals directly? I like how you people figure out what would happen based on no facts or logic. :rolleyes:

Hospitals need supplies and equipment. That costs money.

Yes, but the UK and Germany amoung other EU countries manage to get this money WITHOUT the kind of charging that the USA uses. And considering they can do it better than the USA, I think that says something about your comment.

No, it's more like "What's good for business is good for America". Anytime you introduce more money into a society, it creates even more wealth. If the climate is good for business, we all profit.

Not if that wealth concentrates in the hands of the wealthy few. Like CEOs who crash and burn their companies and get golden handshakes worth millions.

I addressed that. Combination of our current shitty healthcare system and government bureaucracy. Who said it would be the government's job to run hospitals directly? I like how you people figure out what would happen based on no facts or logic. :rolleyes:

How can the Healthcare System per se have anything to do with it? Walter Reed is a military hospital run by the military for military personnel. It's not an HMO and it's not privatized Managed Healthcare.

I like how you figure out what point I'm making without facts or logic.

How can the Healthcare System per se have anything to do with it? Walter Reed is a military hospital run by the military for military personnel. It's not an HMO and it's not privatized Managed Healthcare.
That doesn't sever them from the system.

Not if that wealth concentrates in the hands of the wealthy few. Like CEOs who crash and burn their companies and get golden handshakes worth millions.

We're way off topic, but I figure this thread has about run its course. You seem to think that there is a limit on wealth. I'm sure that you read that somewhere, but you're wrong. If you think long and hard about it, you'll see how silly it is to consider wealth to be finitely limited.

and in a socialised system they get that money, rather than the shareholders. Screw Shareholders anyway, what have they done for me?

On previous occasions, he has stated that he would rather pay 13,000 dollars a year out of his pocket for health insurance than pay 2,000 dollars a year in taxes for the same level of health insurance.

Damn, that's just pathetic.


Another reason while Government healthcare is better is that in private Healthcare, Doctors LOSE money by not preventing illiness, therefore they would rather let you get sick then charge more to make you get bettter instead of having you pay a small amount to prevent from getting sick.


Objectivisim triumphs over all. It is the only one made by rational businessmen and women.
No it's a heartless system made to be the exact opposite of Communism because the creator of it was a Refugee from Soviet Russia.

We're way off topic, but I figure this thread has about run its course. You seem to think that there is a limit on wealth. I'm sure that you read that somewhere, but you're wrong. If you think long and hard about it, you'll see how silly it is to consider wealth to be finitely limited.

Actually, yes, there is a limit to wealth. You COULD just print more money, but that only devalues it. Wealth tied to resources only lasts until there's no more raw resources to own. After that, it's all inflation and perceived wealth. Being a billionaire doesn't mean much when an apple costs $100,000.