View Single Post
Old 09-17-2019, 08:20 AM   #55
pwalker8
Grand Sorcerer
pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,196
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg View Post
Hmm.

...

Second, the idea that the only stakeholder a business should, or does, care about is the stockholders is both controversial and probably a minority view. I question whether most people who went into publishing did so because it was the most lucrative job they could possibly get -- although, admittedly, some did.

Of course, if the publishers don't care at all about financials, they won't be able to release lots of good books.
...
It's a bit more than that, it's the law in the US. It's part of the fiduciary responsibility owed stockholders by corporate officers under federal law. I was a bit surprised when I saw that mentioned in an article I read about the corporate social justice movement. Wish I could find the article again since it cited the Federal law in question that was passed sometime in the mid 70's. I had thought that corporate officers were required to act in the corporation's best interest, not just the stockholders, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
pwalker8 is offline   Reply With Quote