politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He does work in the private sector, and it will happen, his board of directors will be forced to fire him. It's nearly inevitable at this point.
The CEO and all board members of ANY corporation are legally obligated to maximize profits for the shareholders, and if they fail at that, the shareholders can, and will, sue the company, as well as the board members individually. They have a personal financial stake in keeping him in line, and working to grow the company.
Instead, they allowed him to partner up with the loudest anti-ev voice on the planet, then run around for months behaving like a narcissistic toddler with a chain-saw, tanking the company's global reputation, to the point where nobody is buying Teslas, people are unloading them as fast as they can, and protesters are vandalizing amd destroying them.
All of it was easily predictable, and the CEO is supposed to be an unparalled genius, so he defintely should have been able to predict the results of his unhinged behavior.
There WILL be a shareholder lawsuit at some point, I'm sure law firms are looking into it already. The board will almost certainly have to fire him in order to be able to defend themselves from charges of negligence for letting him run wild and destroy the company image.
No they are not. It depends entirely on the corporate charter, though most are set up that way. Additionally, there are non-profit and not-for-profit corporations.
The idea that corporations' mission is solely to maximize shareholder value goes back to Friedman and the Chicago spivs. There were corporations for centuries before that bullshit became current.
In light of the people selling off their teslas, I wonder how easy it would be to put a body kit or something on it so it no longer looked like a tesla?
Possibly, but why throw good money after bad? They are already shitty vehicles that get recalled constantly (the SwastiKKKar has been recalled 8 times in less than a year), and are expensive to repair. The company is tanking, with no recovery in sight, or even appearing to be possible, and will probably be put of business in a few years, even with the inevitable bail out. Then it will become nearly impossible to find parts or repair it.
Unload that dog while you still can.
No, they are not. I can't believe we are still repeating that BS. If this were the case, no board would pay CEO so much when it's clearly unjustified
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Tesla's board is filled by psychophants and actual musk family... They recently were pushing to pay him 56 BILLION dollars for his efforts (talk about maximising profit for shareholders...)
The time to get rid of Musk quietly was about 5 years ago. Now the harm is done, he can quit all he wants but people won't buy these shitty cars because they are objectively inferior compared to competition, people hate Musk around the world and nobody would want Elon to benefit from his stock
Perhaps you would be correct about a normal dispute between a CEO/Board and disgruntled shareholders who want more, but that's not the Tesla situation.
MuskRat has been behaving recklessly, inappropriately, violently, insultingly, and worse, and the extreme negative reaction from Tesla's current and potential market was easily predictable.
Whether the law requires that a CEO act to maximize profits, or simply manage the business in the best way possible on behalf of shareholders, MuskRat's behavior has egregiously violated both, leaving both himself and the board greatly exposed to the possibility of a shareholder class-action suit, for any number of reasons.
With a nearly 60% drop in the stock price (which continues), and a severely damaged corporate image around the entire WORLD (which is probably unrecoverable under the current corporate leadership), both DIRECTLY attributable to his own personal behavior, it is doubtful that the company will even be in business in a couple of years, although HitlerPig will probably give him a bail out.
OK, this new take you bring is a far departure from your original "all companies must maximize profit" original claim
Having said that I still think you are mising 2 key points:
I didn't change anything, I just pointed out that whether you or I are correct (which is an e tirely dufferent duscussion), the situation doesn't really change. MuskRat is still civilly responsible for the Tesla's ongoing crash.
It doesn't require a majority of shareholders to file a class-action lawsuit. Any group with the same issues can combine to sue. Besides, there are probably some other major shareholders who are totally out of their minds over MuskRat costing them millions of dollars with his unhinged reckless behavior. I wouldn't be so quick to believe that they will continue to support him. I certainly wouldn't support someone who has cost me millions so far, and whose continuing behavior is predictably likely to continue to lose my money.
Brother, the Tesla board fought to give Elon 56 Billion dollars and nobody raised an eye brow... Do you really think they can touch him now?
The best thing that would happen here is that Musk behaviour will destroy Tesla, Musk's own power which is entirely derived from money would crumble, and THEN maybe some people would want to kick the dead horse
A class-action lawsuit doesnt require their permission. If the Board doesn't act to protect the company and shareholders from MuskRat's bad behavior, they become as liable for damages as MuskRat. The smart move would be to remove him, but they are probably afraid of him, and his attack dog in the Oval.
They ignore his behavior at their own economic peril.
I know, I never said anything specific about a class action lawsuit.
My point is that Musk has been acting terribly for a LONG time and not too long ago the board was bending over backwards to gift Musk 56 billion dollars... there is no wherewithal in this company to go against Musk
Being a shareholder at all is sufficient standing to sue for a corporation's executives violating its charter.
Where rich people are involved, it has been severely limited since the founding of the Republic. It's gotten worse, but it was never good.
Yes but it's harder to prove damages when a minority holder complains abd the majority claims everything is peachy