this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
324 points (99.4% liked)
AntiTrumpAlliance
1260 readers
746 users here now
About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are asking a publicly traded company to just kill itself, which would ALSO be illegal, so here we are. They are literally required to make the decision that most economically benefits the company, and that is clearly not to build products for a market that does not exist and which may never exist.
I mean yeah, we are getting fucked, but at the moment in this particular case its Trump doing the fucking.
That is like saying Toyota was going to screw itself over by releasing the Prius.
No, that not true. Many shareholders will push for that, but many companies i vest heavily into development that stifles short term profits for long term gain and running a company into the ground with poor decisions is not illegal in any way whatsoever.
How would the law even know what decisions are the most profitable anyway? That bit of misinformation needs to die.
Seriously. Yes, the management of the company could be sued for intentionally tanking a company, but even that would need some egregious shit like emails saying "lol we're tanking the company on purpose" to get anywhere with it.
Long term profits, building brand awareness and goodwill are things companies can aim for instead of short term profits.
Remember that scene in the Dark Knight where the Joker holds a giant cash bonfire, burning all that mob cash? I'm pretty sure a CEO would have to do that before they could actually be sued by shareholders for not seeking maximum profit. There are just too many possible paths to profit otherwise, and they're allowed to focus on the long term rather than the short term.
That's not how the shareholder theory of value works. Companies have wide latitude in how they pursue profit, including being able to focus on the long term over the short term. As a shareholder, the only way you're winning a lawsuit against a publicly traded company for not seeking profit is if they do something insane to deliberately lose money. Like if the CEO gathers up a billion in cash and holds a literal money bonfire. That's what it would take for you to actually be able to sue a company for not seeking maximum profit.
Right, but it means they cannot ignore their own analysis just because it feels right.