NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8705780" data-attributes="member: 18">I think the issue is that you're considering the shareholder model to be "ethical", and particularly the modern "value-driven" (often extremely short-term-ist or even vulture-like) approach to shareholding to be "ethical", which haha, I don't think many people would.The idea that shareholders have to be given value is not really an ethics issue at all. In many cases providing dividends or the like to shareholders is actively unethical in that it can drive the company into the ground. I can provide numerous examples from the UK (and the US has similar issues) where companies making huge profits poured virtually none of that into creating long-term success or even serving their customers (even where duty-bound to do so - privatized utility companies for example), but instead pumped it all into dividends for their shareholders and ridiculous payments to top-level management.As for "protecting shareholder value", that often conflicts HARD with providing shareholders with returns in the longer-term. Thames Water would provide far better returns in the longer-term if they invested their record profits in the water system. But in the short-term they'll make a lot of shareholders incredibly rich by completely refusing to do so (then demanding more money from customers/the government) and instead ploughing the money into short-term "shareholder value".I disagree, and this feels like one of those arguments where people say it's fine for poor kids to not have any toys, even though toys often contribute significantly to development.I don't think that's your intention, but it's the direction of the argument you're making. The idea that non-essential == total luxury, price meaningless is a binary situation I don't think many people or ethicists would agree with. Also amusing to see medicine listed there. I'm guessing you're not an American?Sure, but not as the sole or primary concern. WotC didn't have to cast themselves as "stewards of the game", but if they do so, they open themselves up to criticisms for more than "business ethics" issues.</blockquote>

Verification