@Tfmonkey - In my youth, I was a leftist dipshit. I'm gonna plead poor education and youth on that. All I knew, is that me and my family were at the bottom, and the game was rigged. And the solutions I gravitated to, were "eat the rich" leftist.

I want to thank you for helping me to remove my head from my ass on that matter.

That said, AA presents some interesting ideas here.

https://youtu.be/a0Aa4rQ9wzI?si=NsgWOpLIK2f9qeNu

@Tfmonkey - Don't know if it was intentional, but I feel like my question was indirectly answered on air, via superchat. Excellent points were made about corruption being the unavoidable problem, the impermanence of any given system, and capitalism being the only option where freedom is the default.

I've had a thought in the time since. Looking for ways to tinker for improvement.. My gripes with the current system is shortsightedness, and corporate driven cultural destruction. ➡️

@Tfmonkey ➡️ Given all that... I was wondering about the legal requirement of "fiduciary responsibility" being a legal requirement for corporate board members (I think that's it. I'm kinda ignorant on corporate structure to be honest... which is why I'm curious to hear your opinion).

What if we eliminated that legal requirement that corporations must act in order to maximize profits? Like, what's the worst that could happen?

@Tfmonkey - Hoped for upside:
- Allows corporate MGMT to pursue long term vision, at the risk of short term profit.
- Allows corporations to prioritize (or simply comply with public zeitgeist) social trends - for example, instead of off-shoring in strict pursuit of profit, a company could hire domestic at the risk of some profit.

Possible downside:
- greater risk for investors. But maybe that's just part of the gamble?

What do you think? Am I far wrong in that it might broadly help culturally?

@Tfmonkey - Anticipated objection: shareholders are owners, and that's why the requirement for fiduciary responsibility exists.. 🤔 and it'd be a fair point.

But what if shareholders weren't owners? What if they bought rights to profit-sharing, contingent on profit being available, but without corporate control? ..or maybe limited corporate control.

In real estate, water rights, mineral rights, surface rights, etc, all exist on the same land. Maybe corporate ownership could be similarly split?

A problem with many so called capitalists is they say it is ok if corporations do whatever but not if governments do the same thing

Then the government just hires the corporations to do that thing

They imagine an anarcho capitalist or libertarian capitalist society in which corporations could be good and would be punished by consumers & rival corporations for doing bad and excuse the bad behavior of corporations

They do not acknowledge the difference between theoritical & real behavior

@Sui

Is it the politicians that are bribed by the corporations with lobbyists or the corporations that are bribed by the politicians with government contracts using taxpayer money

I would argue that it happens in both directions

And that it is the same team that ends up in management of both givernments and corporations

And they manage things at the highest level through news outlets that shape the policies of governments, corporations, universities and religious denominations