Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#91

Post by cwp »

mikeash wrote: post #85
cwp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying Burr was honourable. I'm saying he cared about being perceived as honourable. As did Hamilton, or he wouldn't have accepted the challenge. Cheney, in contrast, doesn't give a damn what people think, as long as Halliburton keeps getting government contracts. The point is not that people were more virtuous in the past. It's that virtue, or at least the perception of virtue, was considered important in th…

And I'm saying that the perception of "honorable" was obviously very different than what we would consider "honorable" to be today if murdering his accuser and getting away with it improved that perception.

Sigh. Yes, attitudes toward violence have changed. We don't have duels any more, and if we did, the winner would go to jail. Fine.

What's interesting about the duel isn't that Burr killed Hamilton, it's that he took the risk of getting killed himself. The duel could easily have turned out the other way. Who would risk his life to protect his reputation today? Certainly not Dick Cheney.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#92

Post by LearnYouALisp »

beagle3 wrote: post #20
forensic wrote: post #15

Shareholder value is just the latest politically correct justification. Our society used to be based on concepts like honor. Honor was something you had to earn and something you could lose. To maintain your honor you had to demonstrate certain qualities: truthfulness, earnestness, fairness, politeness, genuine service toward shared superordinate goals (e.g. the country, humanity, the community). At some point, our s…

> Our society used to be based on concepts like honor. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. Society was never based on honor; it was always about worshiping those who succeeded, regardless of how bad they had been, as long as they did some good at some point. see, e.g. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon & Gates in recent times, and basically all fondly remembered kings and barons in earlier times. Society adapts, in part,…

By "our society", American society is meant, and what was said is true. It would be ignorant of history to say that this country's laws and founding documents did not draw much inspiration from the Bible.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#93

Post by LearnYouALisp »

forensic wrote: post #15

Shareholder value is just the latest politically correct justification. Our society used to be based on concepts like honor. Honor was something you had to earn and something you could lose. To maintain your honor you had to demonstrate certain qualities: truthfulness, earnestness, fairness, politeness, genuine service toward shared superordinate goals (e.g. the country, humanity, the community). At some point, our s…

Thank you for standing for what is upright. We need to speak the truth concerning what is right and what is not right.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#94

Post by mikeash »

cwp wrote: post #91
mikeash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm saying that the perception of "honorable" was obviously very different than what we would consider "honorable" to be today if murdering his accuser and getting away with it improved that perception.

Sigh. Yes, attitudes toward violence have changed. We don't have duels any more, and if we did, the winner would go to jail. Fine. What's interesting about the duel isn't that Burr killed Hamilton, it's that he took the risk of getting killed himself. The duel could easily have turned out the other way. Who would risk his life to protect his reputation today? Certainly not Dick Cheney.

I agree, that's interesting. I simply dispute that this is evidence that honor truly was important in the past. The word may have been, but the meaning was not what we mean by it today.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#95

Post by beagle3 »

nknight wrote: post #82
beagle3 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they don't want customers (one, few or many), they shouldn't start a business. Legally, there is no such a thing as a "business". A corporation or LLP exists to limit liability. That's it. "Business" is not well defined in the real world. Is an HFT proprietary trading firm, trading its own money on an anonymous exchange, with no customers or clients, not a business?

> Legally, there is no such a thing as a "business". The US Internal Revenue Service would probably disagree with you there. If I didn't file Schedule C ("Profit or Loss From Business") every year, I'd be in prison. > Is an HFT proprietary trading firm, trading its own money on an anonymous exchange, with no customers or clients, not a business? An HFT with no "customers" is simply an agent of its owners. The only se…

> If I didn't file Schedule C ("Profit or Loss From Business") every year, I'd be in prison.

I wasn't aware of that; In that case, there is at least one legal definition of business with a lot of merit behind it (gun wielding people will put you in prison if you fall under it but do not file schedule C). And whatever the IRS regulations for Schedule C define as a business, is a business.

> An HFT with no "customers" is simply an agent of its owners.

Aren't all businesses? Isn't the defining property of business is doing transactions? (of whatever kind). Can you summarize what the requirement for Schedule C filing is?

> You've latched on to one of the bizarre artifacts of the modern American legal system, not a fundamental principle of business.

Where are the fundamental principles detailed? I agree the vast majority of businesses have customers, but I don't think it's a defining property -- there are a lot of people with customers who do not consider themselves having a "business" (Although the IRS might think otherwise)

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#96

Post by beagle3 »

forensic wrote: post #69
beagle3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you stopped saying "everyone does it" then we could start punishing the dishonorable. If you stopped putting words in my mouth, we might actually have a two sided discussion. I did not say "everyone is a liar" or anything that could remotely be interpreted to mean the same. > Our entire legal system is based on the concept of honor. What country is that? Is that the US system that a hundred years ago decided tha…

1. You aren't refuting the existence of honor or the fact that virtues of truthfulness and fairness had to be displayed in order to retain respect in the past. You are just saying sociopaths still existed and still lied. The difference is that in the past they had to maintain an image of truthfulness, which limited their criminal activity. 2. No social system is perfect and the honor system of course was not either.…

I agree with you about how society should work - more shaming, harsher public response towards repeat offenders. I disagree about your rose tinted view of the past. We could both pick a few historical events that would support our conflicting view of the past.

But I find it hard to take you seriously. Quotes from political speeches, from the likes of George Bush and the conservapedia? Are those supposed to be reliable?

If these are the sources you base your view on then we really do live in different planets.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#97

Post by beagle3 »

LearnYouALisp wrote: post #92
beagle3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our society used to be based on concepts like honor. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. Society was never based on honor; it was always about worshiping those who succeeded, regardless of how bad they had been, as long as they did some good at some point. see, e.g. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon & Gates in recent times, and basically all fondly remembered kings and barons in earlier times. Society adapts, in part,…

By "our society", American society is meant, and what was said is true. It would be ignorant of history to say that this country's laws and founding documents did not draw much inspiration from the Bible.

The Bible ("Old Testament") ... in which King David does the most dishonorable thing possible, sends a man to die in war so he can have that man's wife -- and gets endless praise regardless?

No wonder. Regardless of the inspiration, reality with its liberal bias favors the successful rather than the honorable. These concepts are not inherently incompatible, but way more often than not are, and always were.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#98

Post by sless »

stevedenning wrote: post #58
xianshou wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also interesting: Mr. Denning self-plagiarizes the concluding three sentences of his previous article verbatim. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/16/why-are-... Like all great obvious, radical ideas, in the first instance it will be rejected. Then it will be ridiculed. Finally it will be self-evident and no one will be able to remember why anyone ever thought otherwise.

Interesting? Yes hopefully. Plagiarism is "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." By definition, one can't plagiarize one's own writing. In the 1000+pages of stuff on the blog, it's true that some important ideas are emphasized more than once.

No, it is plagiarism. It is a blatant copy of Arthur Schopenhauer, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#99

Post by forensic »

mikeash wrote: post #86
forensic wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more accountability than what Dick Cheney faced. The point is that even under primitive social codes like the honour system, public officials faced more accountability than they do now. There is no accountability left whatsoever in ANY social leaders: not business leaders, not industry leaders, not political leaders, not military leaders, not scientific leaders, not legal leaders. ZERO personal accountability. T…

Person A ignores his accuser. Person B murders his accuser and goes on with life. How exactly is B more accountability? As far as I know, Dick Cheney hasn't murdered any of his accusers.

It's not murder it's a duel. Big difference. Both duellists put their lives on the line.

How many people in America right now would be willing to have a duel with Cheney? Hundreds if not thousands. That says something meaningful about his role.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#100

Post by forensic »

beagle3 wrote: post #96
forensic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You aren't refuting the existence of honor or the fact that virtues of truthfulness and fairness had to be displayed in order to retain respect in the past. You are just saying sociopaths still existed and still lied. The difference is that in the past they had to maintain an image of truthfulness, which limited their criminal activity. 2. No social system is perfect and the honor system of course was not either.…

I agree with you about how society should work - more shaming, harsher public response towards repeat offenders. I disagree about your rose tinted view of the past. We could both pick a few historical events that would support our conflicting view of the past. But I find it hard to take you seriously. Quotes from political speeches, from the likes of George Bush and the conservapedia? Are those supposed to be reliabl…

Jefferson is a poor source to you? Those quotes demonstrate the cache that the concept of honor had.
Post reply on HN