this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
933 points (94.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43950 readers
1023 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

like I went to taco bell and they didn't even have napkins out. they had the other stuff just no napkins, I assume because some fucking ghoul noticed people liked taking them for their cars so now we just don't get napkins! so they can save $100 per quarter rather than provide the barest minimum quality of life features.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Chouxfleur@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How does the law require them to be greedy?

I just assumed that it was shareholders.

[โ€“] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Maybe not an exact law to be greedy but aren't they legally responsible for acting in the interest of the shareholders not the consumer

[โ€“] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not technically a "law"...

"The shareholder wealth maximization doctrine requires public corporations to pursue a single purpose to the exclusion of all others: increase the wealth of shareholders by increasing the value of their shares. However, a company should be committed to enhance shareholder value and comply with all regulations and laws that govern shareholder's rights."

The" however... " part is largely ignored, except for when it benefits shareholders.

[โ€“] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "however" part you quoted explicitly mentions following the rights of shareholders. From what you described, there's literally nothing else in the doctrine to ignore.

[โ€“] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, your right. I guess I got to the part where it said "comply with regulations and laws" and laughed through the rest.