America first?

[Watermelon]

This is where the line from Hamlet about overreacting ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks") springs to mind.

Well Mr. "more intelligent than them" you made the asinine claim that "American law requires companies to maximize profits," got humiliated when you were rightfully ridiculed for making such a stupid assertion and started sputtering and spurting in rage


Suuuure you did [ATTACH=CONFIG]43945[/ATTACH]


Far, far more likely is that you didn't understand him correctly. I doubt there was anyone who was that ignorant. Well, aside from yourself that is.


Funny that you didn't link to this claim that "many Americans" think that "American law requires companies to maximize profits."

In fact I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that and I've heard many people say a lot of stupid things about how they think businesses are run. Generally, it's stuff that reveals that they don't understand that businesses are in the business of making a profit and not performing this or that "civic duty." But absolutely nobody said they thought that "American law requires companies to maximize profits."


Suuuure they did


You are what you are.

Maybe you should put your bruised ego aside and put your big boy pants on for a change and just own up to what everyone already can plainly see -- that you are woefully ignorant about America. Continuing to pretend otherwise while spouting such utter nonsense makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

I mean if I claimed that New Zealand law requires everyone to own a sheep you would be well within in your rights to laugh and call me grossly ignorant. And if I got overly defensive and started arrogantly declaring how much smarter I am than you, then I would only be going from bad to worse.

So do yourself a favor and grow up and admit that you don't know all that much about America.


Indeed, but absolutely nobody is laughing with you.


Well, you did say that aside from getting your information from Hollyweird depictions, you also know people who live here and have visited here.

I'd say that a whole lot of people know someone who lives in another country or visited there. But very few of them are so full of themselves that they think that makes them some kind of expert about it.

I've been in 19 countries (not including the U.S.) and in some of them several times (Canada, Bahamas, Jamaica and all of Central America). And in most of them I have friends living there and know other people who have visited them, but I'm not such a fool to arrogantly pretend that I'm some sort of expert on them as a result. But for whatever reason you feel a need to act like you do. And that folly results in your making declarations like "American law requires companies to maximize profits."

Grow up star.

[RumTumTugger]

I did admit the statement about maximizing profit was wrong. That brings the total of my mistakes to about 5 factual errors in the course of about 10 years posting on this site. Given I see you make about that number of errors per day, I wouldn't be gloating if I were you.

I see that our scholarly intellectual giant can't count either.

If that is a quote from said commentator. you haven't even cited him just said he was a commentator. who was he and what were his Law qualifications on American Jurisprudence. so far without any more information, so all you admitted to is accepting the word of a someone you don't even know the qualifications of so you could make the stupid statement you made below

American law requires companies to maximize profits.

One wonders how long you've been accepting the word of people you don't know the qualification of to get your information on any you pretend to have expertise in.

[Starlight]

If that is a quote from said commentator. you haven't even cited him just said he was a commentator. who was he and what were his Law qualifications on American Jurisprudence.

I confess I'm totally baffled by your demands that my internet forum posts follow really rigorous evidentiary standards. You do realize forum posts aren't scientific papers right? Given your posts are constantly full of drivel and falsehoods, you clearly don't follow a hundredth of the methodological rigor you're trying to demand of me.

[rogue06]

I see that our scholarly intellectual giant can't count either.

If that is a quote from said commentator. you haven't even cited him just said he was a commentator. who was he and what were his Law qualifications on American Jurisprudence. so far without any more information, so all you admitted to is accepting the word of a someone you don't even know the qualifications of so you could make the stupid statement you made below.

Likely got it from some movie or TV drama if he isn't making it out of whole cloth

[Mountain Man]

It's amusing when uneducated people lecture scientists on what acceptable sources of knowledge are and aren't and what a real intellectual and scientific mindset ought to be.

A Google "scientist" who thinks it's a common belief among Americans that it is legally required for businesses to turn a profit!

You know, you could have just asked someone who actually lives here since your "acceptable source of knowledge" apparently isn't worth a hill of beans.

"I resurched it on Google! I'm a fer real skolar!"

[RumTumTugger]

I confess I'm totally baffled by your demands that my internet forum posts follow really rigorous evidentiary standards. You do realize forum posts aren't scientific papers right? Given your posts are constantly full of drivel and falsehoods, you clearly don't follow a hundredth of the methodological rigor you're trying to demand of me.

Since you have not provided a citation we must presume you don't have one and made this up out of whole cloth. Prove me wrong.

We are not asking you to follow rigorous evidentiary standards we are asking you to back up your statements. If you don't back them up we have to presume that you are making them up and do not know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong. You can prove me wrong by giving us your citations/sources.

As for the rest of your post I and everyone else you say are less intelligent then you do provide citations/sources when making our statements or upon being asked for them. You Tassman, and JimL do not.

[lilpixieofterror]

The idiocy that gets written about me by you guys is hilarious.

I'd be the first to admit I know zilch about mechanics, or building contractors. That's why I'm not posting on a car mechanics forum. I don't think in my entire life I've ever given a mechanic or a building contractor any advice, so your imagination is bizarre. Projection maybe? Nor do I know or care about sport, or fashion, or much of the entertainment industry, and that's likewise why I'm not posting on a sports forum or music or movie forum.

I'm a theology and politics nerd, that's why I'm on this forum. And in my day job I work as a scientist, and I'm pretty well-educated. Is that really so very hard to grasp? I wouldn't have thought that was complicated, but it does seem to cause you guys a lot of distress.

[lilpixieofterror]

I confess I'm totally baffled by your demands that my internet forum posts follow really rigorous evidentiary standards. You do realize forum posts aren't scientific papers right? Given your posts are constantly full of drivel and falsehoods, you clearly don't follow a hundredth of the methodological rigor you're trying to demand of me.

[Starlight]

Since you have not provided a citation we must presume you don't have one and made this up out of whole cloth.

It's weird you assume others are lying until proven otherwise. Says a lot about you really.

You know you can just google for it right? You don't need to hysterically demand things you can easily find yourself. Usually when I ignore your increasingly hysterical demands that I prove the sky is blue it's because what you're asking for is really basic and you should learn by googling it.

Anyway, here are some links:

This lawyer's article argues that maximizing profit is legally required. His argument centers mostly around eBay v. Newmark, a 2010 Delaware case, in which the court ruled against the company management for failing to sufficiently focus on generating profit.

Here is a Q&A of a person asking about the topic. Again eBay v. Newmark is a major focus and the answers tend toward affirming that it is legally required.

Cornell law school lists maximizing profit as one of 3 "widely-held beliefs about business corporations [that] are erroneous. Business experts, financial press, economists and lawyers who rely upon these beliefs fail to grasp the legal features of corporate entities and the role that business corporations play, or can play, in our society". They primarily cite Burwell v Hobby Lobby 2014 for this view. Its not clear how they interpret eBay v. Newmark.

In this opinion piece the writer criticizes what he calls "The myth of maximizing shareholder value" and is critical of other people (e.g. American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales) who repeat the 'myth'. He argues that while in practice many companies do maximize profits to the detriment of people, that this practice is a cultural thing rather than legally required.

This Harvard professor writes

[Starlight]

A Google "scientist" who thinks it's a common belief among Americans that it is legally required for businesses to turn a profit!

I guess if you didn't realize that was a common belief among Americans it must show you're not American and know nothing about America?

[lilpixieofterror]

It's weird you assume others are lying until proven otherwise. Says a lot about you really.

You know you can just google for it right? You don't need to hysterically demand things you can easily find yourself. Usually when I ignore your increasingly hysterical demands that I prove the sky is blue it's because what you're asking for is really basic and you should learn by googling it.

Anyway, here are some links:

This lawyer's article argues that maximizing profit is legally required. His argument centers mostly around eBay v. Newmark, a 2010 Delaware case, in which the court ruled against the company management for failing to sufficiently focus on generating profit.

Here is a Q&A of a person asking about the topic. Again eBay v. Newmark is a major focus and the answers tend toward affirming that it is legally required.

Cornell law school lists maximizing profit as one of 3 "widely-held beliefs about business corporations [that] are erroneous. Business experts, financial press, economists and lawyers who rely upon these beliefs fail to grasp the legal features of corporate entities and the role that business corporations play, or can play, in our society". They primarily cite Burwell v Hobby Lobby 2014 for this view. Its not clear how they interpret eBay v. Newmark.

In this opinion piece the writer criticizes what he calls "The myth of maximizing shareholder value" and is critical of other people (e.g. American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales) who repeat the 'myth'. He argues that while in practice many companies do maximize profits to the detriment of people, that this practice is a cultural thing rather than legally required.

This Harvard professor writes

Most people are stupid.

Next:

Is water wet?

[lilpixieofterror]

I guess if you didn't realize that was a common belief among Americans it must show you're not American and know nothing about America?

[Starlight]

I do get the impression that a lot of the US posters here tend to assume their own life's experience is typical of America, when actually America is quite big and diverse.

Probably they have been far more in a small conservative bubble of like-minded folk than they realize. It's a "I haven't heard any of my friends and neighbors say it in my small town, therefore nobody in the whole country believes it" phenomena. The rejection of mainstream media, that would have informed them about other common viewpoints within their country, probably doesn't help.

Somehow they seem to think physical proximity to America is a substitute for actually learning about the viewpoints of Americans different to themselves. I am regularly shocked on this forum by how little conservative Americans here seem to understand about what liberal Americans think, despite the fact that I've come to expect it and allow for it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I do get the impression that a lot of the US posters here tend to assume their own life's experience is typical of America, when actually America is quite big and diverse.

Probably they have been far more in a small conservative bubble of like-minded folk than they realize. It's a "I haven't heard any of my friends and neighbors say it in my small town, therefore nobody in the whole country believes it" phenomena. The rejection of mainstream media, that would have informed them about other common viewpoints within their country, probably doesn't help.

Somehow they seem to think physical proximity to America is a substitute for actually learning about the viewpoints of Americans different to themselves. I am regularly shocked on this forum by how little conservative Americans here seem to understand about what liberal Americans think, despite the fact that I've come to expect it and allow for it.

[mikewhitney]

I do get the impression that a lot of the US posters here tend to assume their own life's experience is typical of America, when actually America is quite big and diverse.

Probably they have been far more in a small conservative bubble of like-minded folk than they realize. It's a "I haven't heard any of my friends and neighbors say it in my small town, therefore nobody in the whole country believes it" phenomena. The rejection of mainstream media, that would have informed them about other common viewpoints within their country, probably doesn't help.

Somehow they seem to think physical proximity to America is a substitute for actually learning about the viewpoints of Americans different to themselves. I am regularly shocked on this forum by how little conservative Americans here seem to understand about what liberal Americans think, despite the fact that I've come to expect it and allow for it.

Are you kidding? The news and information we constantly hear comes from the leftist media. Their veneer is thin. The leftists are promoting dependency on corrupt governments. The leftists are promoting racism -- to cause divisions among people in great exaggeration of the real problems. They speak against big corrupt corporations but are fully endorsed and supported by domineering corporations like many in Silicon Valley.

The leftist doctrine, on the surface, sounds idealic. In reality, the doctrine is destructive, unreachable. It is sort of the pagan solution in lieu of God's plan. There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end is death.