View Single Post
Old 10-18-2017, 10:00 PM   #89
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,438
Karma: 43514536
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardenman View Post
Publishers are private businesses. They do not have a responsibility to sell books to anyone. They only have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders and any contracts they have with their employees and authors.
A lot of posters here seem to think that the supreme responsibility of private businesses is to customer welfare. Your viewpoint at least has the attraction of being different.

At least publicly, I don't think you would find many private businesses saying that their only responsibilities are to obey contract terms and keep up the stock price. But if that really is their only moral responsibility, you just gave a tremendous argument against capitalism.

I don't recall anyone giving such a hyper-capitalist defense -- or any defense -- back when some of the big five refused to sell eBooks to public libraries. Then it was a major sin. But maybe I forget and/or maybe your opinion was different.

Hardly any of the corporate players would publicly agree with your stockholder-focused description of their mission. For one example, Penguin Random House's owner, Bertelsmann, is in turn mostly owned by a charitable foundation. When I posted that before, a German poster questioned the sincerity of the arrangement (I can't recall, but maybe he called it a tax dodge). However it is partly the case that Penguin Random House is in business to help charities. And, even though I'm often an Amazon critic, I think that Jeff Bezos had a genuine public interest motive in buying the Washington Post (and subsequent adding reporters). He would never agree that the purpose of Amazon is to make stockholders as much money as possible while obeying his contracts.

Last edited by SteveEisenberg; 10-18-2017 at 10:05 PM.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote