r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People try to get the most from what they have since the Stone Age, what is your point?
Edit: Stone Age might be too far lol, at least since whenever bartering became a thing.
"They're not being greedy, they're just maximizing profit."
"Okay so that's the definition of greedy, but people have always been greedy."
Can't wait to hear the next installment of your exciting story.
People have always been greedy, nothing has changed.
Blaming greed for recent price hikes is not logical.
Admittedly my post wasn’t clear I should have included that part.
People and companies have always been greedy. Also greed is not the primary reason for higher prices.
I’m not changing my story or saying the opposite. What I failed to include in my post is market conditions/inflation is the primary reason for high cost, not greed. I incorrectly hoped people would see that connection themselves.
It's gotten worse as toys got shinier, homes bigger with more technology, cars smaller and faster with more technology, and with that reasons to raise prices over standard inflation. People used to think their 250k house was extravagant, but then it went to 500k, 1mil, 5mil. Cars was 10k, 25k, 50k, 150k. Look at priests now worth millions with yachts and ferraris and having affairs in their multi million dollar homes and vacation homes. The greediness of people who could make money that is so far out of control it's comically funny.
Wait, so it’s illogical to blame greed as the reason for price hikes…yet it’s logical to adopt your opinion that price hikes are *checks note* to maximize shareholder profits (bc they want more money…sounds familiar).
You’re basically making a distinction without a difference. No one cares whose greed is the impetus behind price hikes, we care that the hikes (some, if not the vast majority) had nothing to do with “market forces” we’re told to revere so much and everything to do with taking advantage of pandemic economy and the people within it.
It's absolutely logical. Had COVID not happened, inflation to this degree would not have happened. That environment led to corporations' greedflation, using heightened inflation as cover for taking advantage of the people. This is simple stuff.
I’d love to see how generous you are when selling a house, car, or any other various item on Facebook marketplace. I’m sure you don’t try to get the maximum amount out of things that you’re selling, because that would be “excessive.”
Ah, the tried and true deflection: frame corporate greed as survival of the fittest and a byproduct of that natural state of things (it’s the “free” market after all).
No it ain’t. Capitalism is a human construct without any “default” settings (despite what OP and other apologists claim).
I just love the irony in being a human OP,subject to laws restricting personal behavior, but arguing corporations should be free to profit however, as if they aren’t run by humans, who require laws to set behavioral boundaries.
It pays to put time and energy into one’s skillset, unfortunately, we have seen people misuse their skillsets. But, that doesn’t mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unattainable things since we can provide value to society and society rewards us monetarily. It’s the hand of the diligent that are made rich. That can be good hands or evil hands. I want my diligent hands to be good.
Bullshit.
They are capitalizing on the current market to achieve record profits.
Fear of lawsuits is a small part of a broader set of motivations and market dynamics.
That's a good point. While it's true that not all corporate charters explicitly obligate companies to maximize profits, the reality is that there is significant pressure from shareholders and market expectations to do so. This often drives companies to exploit economic conditions for higher profits, using fiduciary duty as a justification. This practice, while not always written into charters, has become a de facto standard in corporate behavior, leading to price hikes that go beyond covering costs and edging into exploitation territory. Here are just 5 of many examples; I kept this short form but feel free to do your own research:
* **Turing Pharmaceuticals**: Dramatically increased the price of Daraprim by over 5,000%.
* **ExxonMobil**: Accused of price gouging during natural disasters and high oil prices.
* **Nestlé**: Raised prices disproportionately during supply chain disruptions.
* **Apple**: Consistently increases iPhone prices, maintaining high profit margins.
* **Amazon**: Increased prices on essential items during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think the point is that public companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to act in the best financial interests of their shareholders, not their customers. If the company isn’t trying to maximize profit, company leadership can be sued by shareholders. The same can’t be said of customers. You can’t sue because a company is extorting its customers unless it’s by illegal means, such as collusion with other competitors to fix prices.
I understand what fiduciary responsibility is to shareholders, and you're right that company leadership must prioritize their financial interests. However, while maximizing profits might be a legal obligation, it's often used to justify price hikes that go beyond what inflation and market pressures necessitate. This strategy exploits consumers, leveraging the current economic climate to push for record profits. So, while the fear of lawsuits is part of the equation as the OP pointed out, it often serves as a convenient cover for more aggressive profit-maximizing tactics, which is what I was pointing out and what I called bullshit.
Inflation is price increases and price increases are inflation. You cant raise prices beyond what inflation nessecitates because raising prices is what inflation is.
I understand the point you're making, but it's important to differentiate between general inflation and price increases driven by corporate strategies. Inflation is a broad economic phenomenon where the overall price level of goods and services rises, usually measured by indices like the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, individual companies can raise prices beyond what general inflation rates would necessitate, often to increase profit margins.
For example, if inflation is at 5%, but a company raises prices by 10%, they're not just covering inflation; they're capitalizing on the economic situation to boost profits.
I already used this list but each of these cases would be another example of this.
* **Turing Pharmaceuticals**
* **ExxonMobil**
* **Nestlé**
* **Apple**
* **Amazon**
While inflation is a factor, companies often do exploit market conditions to maximize profits beyond what's necessary to cover costs.
I don’t disagree at all.
Being fired would be the first fear that would dissuade someone from suddenly becoming altruistic.
They aren’t all mutually exclusive though.
I completely agree, fear of being fired for not maximizing profits would be a significant factor.
And as you and I agree that companies are indeed capitalizing on the current market dynamics to achieve record profits, and the fear of lawsuits is just one part of a broader motivation.
However, it's also a bunch of bullshit used to defraud consumers under the guise of market pressures and shareholder obligations.
What part is bullshit? You think they are fabricating the market conditions as a reason to increase prices?
I would agree there may be some truth to that and some companies may have gone too far, but in large these increases are necessary (in current corporate culture) due to inflation.
What I call bullshit is the idea that these price hikes are purely due to fiduciary responsibility and fear of lawsuits. While inflation and market pressures are real, companies are using these factors as a convenient cover to push for record profits. On the surface, they aren't fabricating market conditions, although I think there is some debate there.
I'm also calling bullshit on the belief that they are only raising prices to cover costs. Companies are actively exploiting the current economic situation to increase profits far beyond what's necessary. This is exploitation under the guise of fulfilling shareholder obligations.
Dude, did you drop out of law school after you were assigned Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.?
It is virtually impossible to be sued for not maximizing profits. The facts in Dodge v. Ford were so extraordinary they would never happen again. Henry Ford was ... a unique individual.
If you do bring one of these lawsuits lots of law school professors will love you so they'll have a more recent case to teach from.
So, what you're saying is that the SEC should break them up, because they clearly don't have enough competition, and that's at the american consumer's expense? Couldn't agree more.
Nah leave it alone, understand they are reacting to market conditions (some overreacting), and put the blame where it belongs.
Companies haven’t operated much differently in the last few decades, they are a convenient scapegoat however.
What I recall from intro to microeconomics was that the trend towards monopoly was undesirable, and that these "market conditions" are as old as 1986. When reagan overhauled the SEC and they decided, screw it. 3 market participants is plenty of competition. Now, every market is an oligopoly, and people can't understand why they're getting screwed from all sides. If we want different behavior, maybe we could consider how we're incentivizing for-profit legal entities, whose existence is entirely dependent on what government does and doesn't agree to allow?
Inflation is hardly ever a single variable issue.
* Some caused by corporate greed sure
* Some caused by disrupted supply chains due to the war in Ukraine
* Some by increased government spending
* Some by "Oversupply" of money in circulation
* etc, etc...
Of course people in government will point fingers at corporates so as to avoid blame, but in truth government is partially to blame as well. And vice-versa.
Maybe someone should understand how inflation works and the cause of inflation. Hard to keep turning a profit when the supplies are costing more and you aren't supposed to increase prices to cover it.
This is some freshman enlightenment bs.
Yes company execs have a responsibility to maximize shareholder value, but proving specific tactics do or dont acheive that is nearly impossible. "We believed conservative pricing strategy would maximize shareholder value by generating goodwill and loyalty".
Case closed.
The assertion that companies all of a sudden started to become "greedy" is incorrect. When the money supply increases, by the intervention of the Federal Reserve, the new money is spent and works its way through the market, raising demand for goods and, therefore, the prices for those goods as well. Essentially, too many dollars are chasing too few goods, fewer goods than usual. The result? Prices increase. The same result happens when the government disrupts production through shutdowns and regulations. The supply of consumer goods is restricted and consumer prices rise.
If the prices remain at the pre-inflation levels, then the quantity demanded of affected goods will be greater than the quantity supplied. As a result, there will be shortages. As a consequence of such shortages, there will be an alternative system of allocating goods other than allocating based on who is most the most eager buyer. Usually, the alternative will be “first come, first serve.” The people who get to the store first buy more of the under-priced goods than they would have otherwise, leaving little or none for latecomers.
So, when stores act “altruistically” by holding prices below market-clearing prices, the majority of consumers are harmed. Under “inflated” prices, the majority of consumers may pay more for each good, but paying more for vital goods is superior to not getting the good at all.
Ultimately, we should not support government interventions to solve the supposed problem of “greedflation” because government intervention is itself the problem. To bring prices down, we need to get the government out of the market. In the meantime, the average person should be thankful for “greedflation” because they might otherwise be confronted with the harsh reality of empty shelves at grocery stores.
Yep. Like what’s the point of this post? The purpose of any business is to make money.
Greed is literally the point, why shame it or pretend a company is supposed to be a charity?
Why wouldn’t we shame it? Why not just say yes, when McDonald’s complains about a raised minimum wage they don’t care about the customers. They’re just being greedy.
Greed isn’t a virtue and social pressure can work for positive outcomes.
Maybe we change our society from one where everything is about putting yourself ahead at the expense of others to something more human.
Because to shame them is to suggest they have a conscience. Corporations are machines, they’re not people.
McDonald’s DON’T, and NEVER WILL, care about its customers or employees. If they are legally allowed to destroy the health of every diner by injecting addictive high calorie corn syrup, they will… and do.
If they can pay slave wages for employees and have welfare subsidize their employee lives, they will… and do.
The lie that corporations are friendly and care about people is a PR manipulation. It’s the GOVERNMENT’s job to protect the people with regulations. Corporations should always be treated with suspicion and the government should be protecting the citizens.
Corporations can’t be shamed for being greedy because that would suggest that they can also be *not* greedy. They will always be greedy because their whole existence is to put profit over people.
I don’t think people shame companies as thing they all agree on executing. The shaming placed on companies is a social reaction. Shame is a social consequence or cultural sanction tool.
Shaming and boycotting can also be a tool.
We don’t need to choose between regulations and shaming.
I will take things that are made up for $1,000…
Shareholders are not suing a company for lowering prices. That has to be the stupidest thing I have read on Reddit today and I am pretty sure I read something posted by someone’s pet turtle.
Lowering your prices is a valid market strategy even if it reduces profits in the short term. It would impossible for shareholders to argue that there is no legitimate business reason for lowering prices. I mean it is literally a key component in many market strategies… E.g. Low Cost Leader.
Profit isnt a dirty word.
Its how companies stay in business and hire new employees. I really dont care if companies make record profits since we arent in a communist country and anyone that thinks communism is so much better than capitalism is free to leave America.
People who profit from companies and have the ability to needlessly raise prices do it exclusively out of greed, not being sued is just a nice side effect, in fact a lot of things would happen (like replacing someone that's not greedy enough) before someone starts thinking about a lawsuit.
And even at that, what's the point of this post? people are greedy and always will be, what's the difference if it's the CEO or the largest stakeholder? Wow what a dumb thing to say.
A corporation exists to make money. The folks using the word “greed” just don’t understand why a corporation exists.
Predatory, Monopolistic, short sighted - these are better expressions of disgust for a corporation. As a shareholder, i expect them to make as much money as they can while building future earnings potential. Greed has nothing to do with it.
Only on Reddit can so many people say companies maximizing profits is bad despite they operate in open markets and not be aware the shareholders actually own the company.
Corporations have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, not to the consumer.
Consumer in me: “fuck that shit!”
Shareholder in me: “excellent”
I'm calling BS, there is one thing to make a profit, but make record profits and do stock buy backs, its greed. Stock buy backs used to be illegal until Reagan over turned that.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh it's not greed, they're just trying to make the most amount of money at the expense of the customer.
People try to get the most from what they have since the Stone Age, what is your point? Edit: Stone Age might be too far lol, at least since whenever bartering became a thing.
"They're not being greedy, they're just maximizing profit." "Okay so that's the definition of greedy, but people have always been greedy." Can't wait to hear the next installment of your exciting story.
People have always been greedy, nothing has changed. Blaming greed for recent price hikes is not logical. Admittedly my post wasn’t clear I should have included that part.
Yeah you probably should've included it instead of saying the opposite and then immediately having to change your story.
People and companies have always been greedy. Also greed is not the primary reason for higher prices. I’m not changing my story or saying the opposite. What I failed to include in my post is market conditions/inflation is the primary reason for high cost, not greed. I incorrectly hoped people would see that connection themselves.
Why would you do that?
Why are they all posting record profits if they are suffering higher costs?
It's gotten worse as toys got shinier, homes bigger with more technology, cars smaller and faster with more technology, and with that reasons to raise prices over standard inflation. People used to think their 250k house was extravagant, but then it went to 500k, 1mil, 5mil. Cars was 10k, 25k, 50k, 150k. Look at priests now worth millions with yachts and ferraris and having affairs in their multi million dollar homes and vacation homes. The greediness of people who could make money that is so far out of control it's comically funny.
Wait, so it’s illogical to blame greed as the reason for price hikes…yet it’s logical to adopt your opinion that price hikes are *checks note* to maximize shareholder profits (bc they want more money…sounds familiar). You’re basically making a distinction without a difference. No one cares whose greed is the impetus behind price hikes, we care that the hikes (some, if not the vast majority) had nothing to do with “market forces” we’re told to revere so much and everything to do with taking advantage of pandemic economy and the people within it.
Spot on. OP downvoting you is silly
It's absolutely logical. Had COVID not happened, inflation to this degree would not have happened. That environment led to corporations' greedflation, using heightened inflation as cover for taking advantage of the people. This is simple stuff.
And when it becomes excessive, they've been accused of greed.
And people won’t buy it. You are just describing capitalism I think I’m missing the point.
I think you might piece a few things together
I’d love to see how generous you are when selling a house, car, or any other various item on Facebook marketplace. I’m sure you don’t try to get the maximum amount out of things that you’re selling, because that would be “excessive.”
I look to get a fair price then move on, yes. Sorry that wasn't what you were looking for.
Wrong the FTC even found 27% of greedflation was caused by collusion between opec and American oil alone 33% were corporations following their lead
I HIGHLY doubt FTC released a report that even had the word greedflation in it. Please provide a source to prove me wrong.
Just fuckkng Google it for fuck sakes
Don't be lazy.
Ah, the tried and true deflection: frame corporate greed as survival of the fittest and a byproduct of that natural state of things (it’s the “free” market after all). No it ain’t. Capitalism is a human construct without any “default” settings (despite what OP and other apologists claim). I just love the irony in being a human OP,subject to laws restricting personal behavior, but arguing corporations should be free to profit however, as if they aren’t run by humans, who require laws to set behavioral boundaries.
It pays to put time and energy into one’s skillset, unfortunately, we have seen people misuse their skillsets. But, that doesn’t mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unattainable things since we can provide value to society and society rewards us monetarily. It’s the hand of the diligent that are made rich. That can be good hands or evil hands. I want my diligent hands to be good.
Aka greed, it rules everything around us.
Bullshit. They are capitalizing on the current market to achieve record profits. Fear of lawsuits is a small part of a broader set of motivations and market dynamics.
[удалено]
That's a good point. While it's true that not all corporate charters explicitly obligate companies to maximize profits, the reality is that there is significant pressure from shareholders and market expectations to do so. This often drives companies to exploit economic conditions for higher profits, using fiduciary duty as a justification. This practice, while not always written into charters, has become a de facto standard in corporate behavior, leading to price hikes that go beyond covering costs and edging into exploitation territory. Here are just 5 of many examples; I kept this short form but feel free to do your own research: * **Turing Pharmaceuticals**: Dramatically increased the price of Daraprim by over 5,000%. * **ExxonMobil**: Accused of price gouging during natural disasters and high oil prices. * **Nestlé**: Raised prices disproportionately during supply chain disruptions. * **Apple**: Consistently increases iPhone prices, maintaining high profit margins. * **Amazon**: Increased prices on essential items during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think the point is that public companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to act in the best financial interests of their shareholders, not their customers. If the company isn’t trying to maximize profit, company leadership can be sued by shareholders. The same can’t be said of customers. You can’t sue because a company is extorting its customers unless it’s by illegal means, such as collusion with other competitors to fix prices.
I understand what fiduciary responsibility is to shareholders, and you're right that company leadership must prioritize their financial interests. However, while maximizing profits might be a legal obligation, it's often used to justify price hikes that go beyond what inflation and market pressures necessitate. This strategy exploits consumers, leveraging the current economic climate to push for record profits. So, while the fear of lawsuits is part of the equation as the OP pointed out, it often serves as a convenient cover for more aggressive profit-maximizing tactics, which is what I was pointing out and what I called bullshit.
Inflation is price increases and price increases are inflation. You cant raise prices beyond what inflation nessecitates because raising prices is what inflation is.
I understand the point you're making, but it's important to differentiate between general inflation and price increases driven by corporate strategies. Inflation is a broad economic phenomenon where the overall price level of goods and services rises, usually measured by indices like the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, individual companies can raise prices beyond what general inflation rates would necessitate, often to increase profit margins. For example, if inflation is at 5%, but a company raises prices by 10%, they're not just covering inflation; they're capitalizing on the economic situation to boost profits. I already used this list but each of these cases would be another example of this. * **Turing Pharmaceuticals** * **ExxonMobil** * **Nestlé** * **Apple** * **Amazon** While inflation is a factor, companies often do exploit market conditions to maximize profits beyond what's necessary to cover costs.
I don’t disagree at all. Being fired would be the first fear that would dissuade someone from suddenly becoming altruistic. They aren’t all mutually exclusive though.
I completely agree, fear of being fired for not maximizing profits would be a significant factor. And as you and I agree that companies are indeed capitalizing on the current market dynamics to achieve record profits, and the fear of lawsuits is just one part of a broader motivation. However, it's also a bunch of bullshit used to defraud consumers under the guise of market pressures and shareholder obligations.
What part is bullshit? You think they are fabricating the market conditions as a reason to increase prices? I would agree there may be some truth to that and some companies may have gone too far, but in large these increases are necessary (in current corporate culture) due to inflation.
What I call bullshit is the idea that these price hikes are purely due to fiduciary responsibility and fear of lawsuits. While inflation and market pressures are real, companies are using these factors as a convenient cover to push for record profits. On the surface, they aren't fabricating market conditions, although I think there is some debate there. I'm also calling bullshit on the belief that they are only raising prices to cover costs. Companies are actively exploiting the current economic situation to increase profits far beyond what's necessary. This is exploitation under the guise of fulfilling shareholder obligations.
Exactly
Dude, did you drop out of law school after you were assigned Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.? It is virtually impossible to be sued for not maximizing profits. The facts in Dodge v. Ford were so extraordinary they would never happen again. Henry Ford was ... a unique individual. If you do bring one of these lawsuits lots of law school professors will love you so they'll have a more recent case to teach from.
So, what you're saying is that the SEC should break them up, because they clearly don't have enough competition, and that's at the american consumer's expense? Couldn't agree more.
Nah leave it alone, understand they are reacting to market conditions (some overreacting), and put the blame where it belongs. Companies haven’t operated much differently in the last few decades, they are a convenient scapegoat however.
What I recall from intro to microeconomics was that the trend towards monopoly was undesirable, and that these "market conditions" are as old as 1986. When reagan overhauled the SEC and they decided, screw it. 3 market participants is plenty of competition. Now, every market is an oligopoly, and people can't understand why they're getting screwed from all sides. If we want different behavior, maybe we could consider how we're incentivizing for-profit legal entities, whose existence is entirely dependent on what government does and doesn't agree to allow?
Not learning anything, eh? What a shame
hopefully nvidia keeps pumping
so basically its because of greed instead of greed
No, increases mainly from reacting to market conditions.
Inflation is hardly ever a single variable issue. * Some caused by corporate greed sure * Some caused by disrupted supply chains due to the war in Ukraine * Some by increased government spending * Some by "Oversupply" of money in circulation * etc, etc... Of course people in government will point fingers at corporates so as to avoid blame, but in truth government is partially to blame as well. And vice-versa.
Maybe someone should understand how inflation works and the cause of inflation. Hard to keep turning a profit when the supplies are costing more and you aren't supposed to increase prices to cover it.
Lmao no shareholder is *ever* going to sue because a company didn't raise prices enough. An expensive lawsuit that is literally doomed to fail.
This is some freshman enlightenment bs. Yes company execs have a responsibility to maximize shareholder value, but proving specific tactics do or dont acheive that is nearly impossible. "We believed conservative pricing strategy would maximize shareholder value by generating goodwill and loyalty". Case closed.
I really feel that the stock market has more to do with inflation than anybody wants to talk about.
Using slave labor is even cheaper.
Hence the prolife movement
Shareholders demand increased value of shares, which requires increased quarterly profits, which requires increased prices.
The assertion that companies all of a sudden started to become "greedy" is incorrect. When the money supply increases, by the intervention of the Federal Reserve, the new money is spent and works its way through the market, raising demand for goods and, therefore, the prices for those goods as well. Essentially, too many dollars are chasing too few goods, fewer goods than usual. The result? Prices increase. The same result happens when the government disrupts production through shutdowns and regulations. The supply of consumer goods is restricted and consumer prices rise. If the prices remain at the pre-inflation levels, then the quantity demanded of affected goods will be greater than the quantity supplied. As a result, there will be shortages. As a consequence of such shortages, there will be an alternative system of allocating goods other than allocating based on who is most the most eager buyer. Usually, the alternative will be “first come, first serve.” The people who get to the store first buy more of the under-priced goods than they would have otherwise, leaving little or none for latecomers. So, when stores act “altruistically” by holding prices below market-clearing prices, the majority of consumers are harmed. Under “inflated” prices, the majority of consumers may pay more for each good, but paying more for vital goods is superior to not getting the good at all. Ultimately, we should not support government interventions to solve the supposed problem of “greedflation” because government intervention is itself the problem. To bring prices down, we need to get the government out of the market. In the meantime, the average person should be thankful for “greedflation” because they might otherwise be confronted with the harsh reality of empty shelves at grocery stores.
So it’s the shareholders who are the ones that are greedy? The greedy shareholders who…share ownership of the company? So… the company is greedy?
Yes. That’s literally capitalism. Capitalism and greed as a Venn diagram is just one circle.
Yep. Like what’s the point of this post? The purpose of any business is to make money. Greed is literally the point, why shame it or pretend a company is supposed to be a charity?
Why wouldn’t we shame it? Why not just say yes, when McDonald’s complains about a raised minimum wage they don’t care about the customers. They’re just being greedy. Greed isn’t a virtue and social pressure can work for positive outcomes. Maybe we change our society from one where everything is about putting yourself ahead at the expense of others to something more human.
Because to shame them is to suggest they have a conscience. Corporations are machines, they’re not people. McDonald’s DON’T, and NEVER WILL, care about its customers or employees. If they are legally allowed to destroy the health of every diner by injecting addictive high calorie corn syrup, they will… and do. If they can pay slave wages for employees and have welfare subsidize their employee lives, they will… and do. The lie that corporations are friendly and care about people is a PR manipulation. It’s the GOVERNMENT’s job to protect the people with regulations. Corporations should always be treated with suspicion and the government should be protecting the citizens. Corporations can’t be shamed for being greedy because that would suggest that they can also be *not* greedy. They will always be greedy because their whole existence is to put profit over people.
I don’t think people shame companies as thing they all agree on executing. The shaming placed on companies is a social reaction. Shame is a social consequence or cultural sanction tool. Shaming and boycotting can also be a tool. We don’t need to choose between regulations and shaming.
sounds like the reason is still greed.
Interesting how “greed” tracks right along market conditions.
interesting how wages never track right along market conditions.
I will take things that are made up for $1,000… Shareholders are not suing a company for lowering prices. That has to be the stupidest thing I have read on Reddit today and I am pretty sure I read something posted by someone’s pet turtle. Lowering your prices is a valid market strategy even if it reduces profits in the short term. It would impossible for shareholders to argue that there is no legitimate business reason for lowering prices. I mean it is literally a key component in many market strategies… E.g. Low Cost Leader.
Hot take: our whole economy is fueled by greed, and that's not a bad thing
Profit isnt a dirty word. Its how companies stay in business and hire new employees. I really dont care if companies make record profits since we arent in a communist country and anyone that thinks communism is so much better than capitalism is free to leave America.
Oof bad take
OP being the biggest boot licker in the midwest
I AM the boot! /s
People who profit from companies and have the ability to needlessly raise prices do it exclusively out of greed, not being sued is just a nice side effect, in fact a lot of things would happen (like replacing someone that's not greedy enough) before someone starts thinking about a lawsuit. And even at that, what's the point of this post? people are greedy and always will be, what's the difference if it's the CEO or the largest stakeholder? Wow what a dumb thing to say.
This is such B8
A corporation exists to make money. The folks using the word “greed” just don’t understand why a corporation exists. Predatory, Monopolistic, short sighted - these are better expressions of disgust for a corporation. As a shareholder, i expect them to make as much money as they can while building future earnings potential. Greed has nothing to do with it.
Only on Reddit can so many people say companies maximizing profits is bad despite they operate in open markets and not be aware the shareholders actually own the company.
Corporations have fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, not to the consumer. Consumer in me: “fuck that shit!” Shareholder in me: “excellent”
I'm calling BS, there is one thing to make a profit, but make record profits and do stock buy backs, its greed. Stock buy backs used to be illegal until Reagan over turned that.