then you have a corrupt government. The obligation of Congress is to act in the best interest of the public and to create a moral and just system for us to live in. They obviously fail and have failed miserably at their job. However, just because someone else fails at a job doesn't mean other people should be obligated to play by unwritten rules.

absolutely correct

CDL hates the game not the player except anyone who wants to change the rules of the game is evil as well. This type of stuff will always be a game of people trying to exploit the system and the bumbling regulators trying in vain to catch up.

This isn't a market inefficiency he's removing, nothing is made better by this. And consumer backlash for gauging is a calculation that is part of the game as well. Also this guy is the king of scummy hedge fund moves with short squeezes etc

Actually it does, and on top of that they should be admonished for bribing other people to fail at their jobs. Stop apologizing for scumbags.

Yeah the notion that everything legal is by definition also moral needs to gtfo, it gives us many evils like Charlottesville

If you have any business where even a single investor wants you to maximize profits/revenue/margins (or whatever financial metric the market values in order to create shareholder value) then your moral obligation is to act in a manner to create that value.

Of course, companies also have moral obligations to treat their employees in a certain manner.

They don't have a moral obligation to price their products in a certain way though UNLESS they are legally regulated.

Regulating drug pricing is something that I believe SHOULD happen, but in the instances where it is not regulated there is no reason a company should price their drug at anything other than the price that maximizes shareholder value.

Bribery is illegal in most cases and not only should it be condemned but it should result in people being jailed when they give or receive illegal bribes.

not everything that is legal is moral. but the whole point of a corporation (unless it is run by a small group of people who have a different goal) is to make money for its investors which it does by providing a good or service to people willing to pay for it. They should do so in any manner that is legal.

No it doesn't. Again, you are claiming that just spending a few hundred bucks to set-up a LLC gives you moral license to do whatever you want to make money as long as it is not illegal. Including bribing people to not make your immoral behavior illegal. And bribing people to not make bribing people illegal.....

This is a plainly self-evident morally bankrupt outlook on life and society.

People who take bribes to do something that harms their employer are already not fulfilling their duty. This is a problem with each and every one of those individuals (of which there are many).

I'm taking about bribing lawmakers. Yes, they are not fulfilling their duty either. This does not excuse the behavior of the people bribing them.

and like I said, the rules of the game need to be changed, but while the rules exist as they do its ok to play by them. Its also ok (and morally correct) for the public to not accept your decisions and boycott, protest, or shed negative light on your decisions if they are against the public or an individual's interest.

Everyone should have a role in this from companies to lawmakers to public advocacy groups to individuals.

I never suggested it did. It is illegal (and immoral) to bribe a lawmaker and should be harshly punished.

Its "okay" as in that you will not be thrown in jail for it, that is about it. You are saying that the should do it if they think it profitable (including anticipated public backlash) because they set-up an LLC with their buddy, and that is obviously morally bankrupt philosophy.

You're just making things up at this point. Corporations are not obligated to maximize profits - corporations can be formed to pursue whatever the hell their owners want them to do. The NY Times isn't obligated to turn into Fox News just because it might make them more profitable, nor is Warren Buffett obligated to consider investing in tobacco-related companies if they're underpriced. How would socially-responsible mutual funds exist in a world where for-profit agents (as mutual fund managers obviously are) were required to maximize profits? [There's a very narrow set of circumstances where this argument is stronger, like when the corporation is being auctioned off, and will cease to exist; in that case, there's a better argument for saying that the directors should sell to the highest bidder. This is the Revlon case in the Delaware Supreme Court.]

If you want a cite for that, see the Hobby Lobby decision, which says:

I'm actually surprised that you actually said that "Of course, companies also have moral obligations to treat their employees in a certain manner." Where does that obligation come from, and why wouldn't the source of that obligation further create a moral obligation to customers or residents of the city in which they're located?

You could make a stronger argument if you said, "Corporations are not obligated to maximize profits, but they are obligated to act in the interest of their shareholders." That gives you a lot of latitude, because presumably you'd have an efficient matching of investors to firms; the NY Times would be owned by investors who value journalism more than profits, and Costco would be owned by investors who value highly-compensated employees, happy customers, and profits.

But even that notion of shareholder interest at all costs is arguable. You've got many states that have adopted constituency statues, which allow directors to consider stakeholders (other than shareholders) in their decision-making process.

Opening sentence to an article:

We report. You decide

Yeah don't read that article unless you want to go on massive life tilt

Trump fist pumping his arm off at this van attack in Barcelona

CDL's whole thing is just the business equivalent of those guys that font understand the first amendment. Freedom of speech/transactions isn't freedom from consequences.

Well, the degree to which he did this was cartoon-villainish. Other pharma CEOs (generally huge dicks themselves) essentially looked at his moves as gauche. Would be one thing if he was crusading to have the system changed or something, but. he. wasn't. I also believe "A" is an overstatement as a lot of these things get administered through ER's and hospital stays directly.

In the US, people feel fiercely emotionally devoted to capitalism without ever actually grasping the ugliness at the extremes of supply/demand (see the discussion on healthcare).

I bet he won't say anything until he has all the facts!

spidercrab, what I meant when I said "unless it is run by people who have a different goal" was to account for socially responsible corporations. But there is no obligation for a corporation to be socially responsible. It would be good if they all were, but its not necessary.

This is a fair criticism and what I should have said instead. I would like to amend my prior statements to read like this. Of course, that means maximizing the value of the corporation in drug companies with no stated humanitarian agenda.

how is my thing anything like that?

I have said that the corporations should face consequences from society, just not in a legal manner. It is not only acceptable, but reflective of strong morals for people to band together against this type of corporate action. The onus is on the public to do this so that a corporation cannot possibly profit at the expense of society rather than on the corporation to decide not to profit at the expense of society even though it is viable. The public should act in a manner that makes this a flawed strategy.

Things like journalism criticizing the companies and their executives are not only fair game, but they are a valuable aspect in the whole process.

Interesting since they all *state* a humanitarian agenda though.