Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Donating $1 Million to Trump's Inaugural Fund
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm no lawyer either. I'm familiar with these concepts because I have a business degree and have worked in executive management in the Silicon Valley.
I'm not sure I've heard anyone claim a company had a duty to maximize profits. As you noted previously, this would a hard thing to determine. What isn't urban legend is that business schools have been teaching that the number one duty of executives is to maximize shareholder return. This is taught as part of Agency Theory, a concept that defines the relationship between shareholders and their agents, executive management. It isn't a legal requirement, but it has been a cultural mandate in the business community since the 1980s.
I'm sympathetic to your position, but I probably wouldn't go as far as mandating equal footing for other stakeholders. Your idea, by the way, is called stakeholder theory and creates its own set of problems, chief among them it leads to inconsistent decision making, dilutes corporate focus, and creates fiduciary contradictions. We've seen these ideas result in still-born concepts such as CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and deceptive practices such as greenwashing.
The only way to shape corporate behavior is to pass laws that define specific actions as illegal and realign incentive structures. For example, if you want to stop the obscene disparity between worker and executive pay, change the tax code so that pay or equity granted in excess of some well-defined amount is taxed at progressively higher rates.
Last edited:
Come on, it's obvious: Tim is bribing Trump to preemptively prevent an attack, just like every other wealthy person and company is doing. It's disgusting, but probably essential to avoid retribution from convicted felon and Russian agent Trump.
This right here. Everyone thinks they can trust the scorpion, but invariably, Trump will sting his supporters, and they will perish just like the proverbial frog and scorpion. NEVER trust a vile animal who has malignant NPD. Trump is the most dangerous criminal in human history. He's already killed over 600,000 Americans...and 8.1B humans are next when he lets Putin start WW III.
Biden administration did not require bribes.
It’s true. But they didn’t do anything, except destroy the country.
US has been firmly on a path towards the WW3 since they poisoned Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1945.
Keep a lookout for the $1M "performance bonus" check to Cook on December 31 so Apple keeps its hands clean.
Just for the record, I didn’t like Harris either. I know money talks and making money without impediments is ultimately Apple’s goal. It just seems to clash with the perception most people have of what Apple represents or more to point the image Apple itself tries to project to consumers with Tim at the helm of a forward thinking company. Maybe I was just being naive expecting something different.
You actually explained your point really well. I disagree but I fully understand your viewpoint
No one is forced to buy Apple products. There are ample alternatives, different value propositions, and a variety of price points offered by other companies for every product Apple sells. If Apple is charging too much and not providing value, then it is up to the customer to buy something else. In a free market, the only way to determine the value of something is what the market will bear. Clearly, there are enough people who find Apple products valuable to make it the most highly valued company in the history of mankind.
As for moral good, Adam Smith believed free markets operate on self interest and that justice and moral behavior were necessary for a well functioning free market. The extent to which people act solely out of self interest perverts the proper functioning of the market.
Oooooooh I read the title of this MacRumors article and not even fiber optic internet could load the comments section fast enough. I'll grab the popcorn (which is now much more expensive thanks to Bidenflation).
I thought you leftists supported criminal justice reform; now all of a sudden you're disgusted by someone's status as a convicted felon? And don't pull the "but he's the president and has the nuclear codes" garbage; all the felons you people have worked to free from jails and prisons, and those you've permitted to unlawfully enter this country are way more dangerous taken as a whole than one man with some nukes.
I thought you leftists supported criminal justice reform; now all of a sudden you're disgusted by someone's status as a convicted felon? And don't pull the "but he's the president and has the nuclear codes" garbage; all the felons you people have worked to free from jails and prisons, and those you've permitted to unlawfully enter this country are way more dangerous taken as a whole than one man with some nukes.
Of course it's been around since the dawn of humanity, but it has objectively not remained static since WWII.
The political (domestic and foreign) dynamics have changed markedly with globalization, with lobbying, with changes in tax structure, regulations, etc.
The data exists, and is very clear: PACs simply didn't exist as they do now in the late 20th century. Not even close. And media and availability of it has something to do with _how_ those entities go about their mission, but these entities, the regulatory revolving door, and MNC input in the process simply didn't exist in any of the same way.
Human nature doesn't change, and "the media" is a part of amplifying it or not and awareness of what goes on, but it sounds like you just have an axe to grind with Biden than really objectively looking at this as a systemic issue. This is *not* a partisan problem, the rules of the game have evolved, that's simply a fact, go look at the litany of court cases and changes in election laws, in funding laws, in influence in administrative/cabinet level positions, in the changing nature of the House Ways and Means committee, it's objectively a thing.
Hyperbole much?
Look, for both sides, the US is in a world of hurt right now. I'd actually say the US is a failed experiment, we just haven't yet reached the half-life. I worked in politics for 25 years, and came to the conclusion that the system is just inevitably broken, and always will be. It's a matter of degree, and that degree has tilted mightily as of late.
But to argue that both sides are equally to blame is disingenuous at best. I'll grant many if not most of the criticisms of the Biden administration, Democrats and the Left. All that said...
To not recognize the sea-change that is Trump is to be wholly dishonest either with yourself or with the rest of humanity. Trump is not just another politician, and no, he's not playing by the same rules as the rest of the political establishment. And I get that for many of you that's a GOOD THING!
You're in a natural political cycle, one that makes it possible for a strong man to rise. But to try to argue that Trump is no better or worse than anyone else is simply delusional. And you know it.
At the very least, his moral character is so different from so-called normal politicians that it's laughable that some of you (much of the country) are simply trying to wave that away. For decades I personally grew tired of all the finger-wagging Republicans droning on and on and on (and on) about the importance of moral character in politicians, only to throw all of that out and flock as quickly as possible to Trump. At least I don't have to take my conservative relatives seriously anymore on that topic.
And many of you likely feel "things are so bad I don't mind that he's a despicable person). I even understand that. I think it's terribly short-sighted but I understand the drive, because that's human nature.
Both sides, the Left and the Right, no longer want to be in a democracy. Democracy, at its heart, is a commitment to Centrism. To reaching across the aisle. But that means compromise, and building a shared vision with those you disagree with. THAT's democracy. And neither the Left nor the Right want anything to do with Centrism. You all simply want YOUR preferred ideas to win, even at the expense of Democracy.
The problem is that Trump simply has next to no values. Those of you placing your undying allegiance in him, even to the point where you're lying to yourself about who he is and what he believes and even what he's capable of. Trump will betray you. He could just as easily have decided to run as a Democrat and would have tailored his political positions to fit Democratic principles. And many, many on the Left would have cheered him as a strong man, as their strong man.
In the end, I no longer believe that Democracy, as we know it, is tenable. Humans did not evolve to actually work well in large-scale communities, and trying to find compromise in the age of the internet and populism is simply untenable. Of course, it will take a long time (or not) for it all to unravel), but humans, at their core, are not built to live in Democracy.
And Apple/Cook are playing on the playing field that exists. If you think they can simply ignore the political and business climate you simply don't understand the issues at play. Go be a purist, but it's boring as a political exercise.
Last edited:
I think you are confusing left and right, liberal and conservative, with Democrat and Republican. Democrats are currently a centrist party. Compromising with the far right doesn't make them centrist, it would make them conservative.
The problems with our democracy are not unfixable. The solutions would be a commitment to democracy. End gerrymandering. Overturn Citizens United. Get rid of the filibuster and all other anti-majority rules like blue slips. Move to ranked choice voting in all elections. Get rid of the electoral college. Term limits and ethics requirements for SCOTUS. None of these are inherently conservative or liberal. They're real centrist positions.
The harder problem for me is news. Capitalism and journalism are no longer compatible. Without effective moderation of the news, journalistic integrity, while certainly not missing as some claim, is lost in a sea of misinformation.
I was simplifying for the sake of the discussion. I'm well aware of all the nuances on the spectrum.
Sure. And the reason these exist is because human nature isn't built to want to compromise. And the reason many of these haven't been overturned has been the inability of Centrist Democrats and the Alt-Left to decide to work together.
I once worked on a campaign to implement ranked-choice voting. Not gonna happen anytime soon at best. All of the things you list require an electorate that is committed to Democracy. For reasons beyond the length I want this post to be, I believe that the Internet has destroyed the ability to see the big picture.
And the internet is at the core of how and why these things are simply untenable going forward. But as I say, that's a different discussion.
Democrats are not centrist. By any historical or world measure, they have been center-right since the uncritical adoption of neoliberal economics under Clinton. Obama followed suit with his policies on bank bailouts and corporate-run ACA. Biden felt a bit more towards center, but he did nothing to alter the rightward move of the party.
Many of those are centrist positions. The problem is that neither party truly wants to get rid of the game. As institutions, they merely want to tilt the game in their direction. It is hard to see at this point how the change comes about without a radical change away from the hyperpartisanism and othering that is our current political zeitgeist.
Start by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and implementing rules on ownership which prevent the consolidation of ownership into the hands of a few. Regardless of whether you like Musk or Bezos, it is not healthy for them to control the media they own. Of course, those two things are easier said than done. They can't be accomplished when congressional debate always feels like it is two minutes away from a knife fight.
Last edited:
Sure, but that simplification is part of the problem. If the Democrats move to center and the Republicans move to the far right, the problem isn't a lack of compromise on both sides. The problem is lack of compromise by Republicans.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Other than Manchin and Sinema defending the filibuster, the Democrats were united on several of these issues when they had power.
That's exactly what I said. "The solutions would be a commitment to democracy."
"The internet" isn't the problem. Huge platforms actively promoting misinformation is the problem. Allowing billionaires to promote propaganda and misinformation while pretending to simply be a conduit for free speech is the problem.
I'd call myself a moderate conservative by the traditional definition, though I currently support more Democratic policies because they are the ones that support moderate conservative policies. But Bernie is right that Billionaires should not exist.
Not sure what you think I disagree with there. Other than I consider center right to be part of the center.
I disagree with the bothsidesism here. The vast majority of the Democratic party supports pro-democracy reforms. The Republicans do not. Because pro-democracy reforms would benefit the current Democratic party and force the Republican party away from the far right.
Yep. Consolidation has progressed far beyond efficiency gains into market control.
Democrats don't need to court the far right. Democrats could run the board with about 3% more support from moderate republicans and help from the Alt-Left.
I disagree that most of the problems on the internet have to do with huge platforms. Sure, I agree that is a very real problem. But the problems the internet has brought are much deeper than that.
See, you're wanting to have what I call a traditional political discussion; typical cerca 2008 and before. But these aren't typical times.
The United States has a President who betrayed the basic principle of peaceful transfer of power, who knowingly lied about a "rigged election" and who continues to lie to this day. Which led to...
A clown posse who stormed the capitol building with the express intent to disrupt a peaceful and lawful transfer of power. We have people even on this thread who try to minimize that action. It can't be minimized.
The United States has a DOJ that refused to prosecute Trump in a timely manner, proving that yes, the justice system treats people differently. There are people on this very thread who are under the delusion that Jan. 6th was no big deal. It was. It is.
And he got re-elected.
Trump and his cult are a sea change in the culture and operations of politics in the United States.
What are moderate Republicans? Again, I think you're moving the center to the right by conflating Republicans with conservatives. Elected Republicans are currently aligned on the far right. There isn't a moderate right to reach out to. A Republican border bill couldn't get passed with almost full Democratic support.
That's pretty vague. What are you referring to?
Sure. A sea change. But a sea change brought on not through the failure of democracy, but a failure of law and a failure of our representatives to anticipate a president willing to abandon all ethical standards and norms with complete control over his party.
You're talking about elected officials. I'm talking voters. Inside the GOP caucus, yes, things are a mess. The Trump Cult is powerful. And it should be no end of shame the number of Republicans who saw Trump clearly for who he is, said so in the 2016 election, and have wholly sold out to what they know is great risk to democratic rule. But as I say, human nature is strong. And most people have zero interest in compromise.
42% of voters in the last presidential election consider themselves "moderates." Harris got 58% of those. Had Harris gotten a tick up in percentage of those voters, we'd be in a different conversation. But even had Harris won, the United States still has a huge problem.
It's a long conversation that isn't really appropriate for this thread. But here's a short version. Christianity introduced a philosophy of individualism into the Western World. Judaism is more aligned with the idea of collective salvation. Christianity made all religious devotion personal, a direct 1-1 relationship with God. Fast forward to The Enlightenment; that philosophy of individualism got a huge boost, and has fully matured into radical individualism.
The internet is full-on delivery system for radical individualism. The religion of the West is individual achievement. It's taught to children in every movie they see, every book they read, every lesson in school. Be YOU. Change the WORLD. If anything gets in YOUR way, defeat it or leave it. On the internet, individuals tend to reinforce their own individualistic views. That requires more explanation, but I'm not going to expand it much here.
The end point is that radical individualism is counter to any functioning "We." The very first word in the US constitution is now its own undoing. I no longer believe that Western Democracy can serve the needs of a world that thinks the only valuable outcome is radical individualism.
As I said, human nature. A "failure of law and representatives" IS a failure of Democracy.
Again, your floating the center to the right. 58% of the center is certainly appealing across center.
That's certainly a take. Not sure I disagree, though I think you may be making some leaps. But I maintain that social media algorithms promoting propaganda and misinformation has a far greater effect than actively seeking like-minded individuals on the internet.By that logic any policy failure is a failure of democracy. I guess I see a distinction there that you don't. Democracy only fails if it can't correct it's mistakes over time.