[kwlug-disc] Home made indoor TV Antenna

[unsolicited]

Ach. Some.

 >> "Maximize their profit" is what business do.  And, THAT is the public
 >> interest.

No. That is in the business' interest. Only. The public's interest is a 
wider context that is not theirs.

Whether maximizing the profit is in the company's interest or the 
shareholder's interest can be argued, but in theory the directors 
represent the shareholders and they decide what is in the company's 
interest. Erroneous or no. You can also debate that this, like the legal 
system, has been suborned as those with money can starve you out.

Whether being a good citizen is good business, to what extent, and how, 
well, that too is up to the business. But also why we have regulation. 
And criminal law. And fraud. (Never mind when the business is an 
individual. Or the individual thinks the business is theirs.)

Like ... thou shalt adhere to good food safety practices.

What the public interest is, is debatable, and that the institutions for 
discerning such, be they regulators, government, or politicians, seems 
broken - is another story for another place and time.


On 14-06-29 03:26 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, William Park <opengeometry at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 01:34:20PM -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>>> 2. Business interests seeking to maximize their profit any which way
>>> they can that they can get away with. Their interest is not the public
>>> interest, unless they can increase their profit in kowtowing to it.
>>> (And the lines don't stay still.)
>>
>> "Maximize their profit" is what business do.  And, THAT is the public
>> interest.
>
> Absolutely not!
>
> This is a common misconception that gets thrown out to justify
> predatory practices by large corporation contrary to the interest of
> the people.
>
> What it does is conflate "shareholders" with "the public", and claim
> that by maximizing profits, they are doing what the public wants.
> Total BS.
>
> If a company is selling widgets or speciality foods, then they can do
> what they want, and maximize profits for shareholders.
>
> But if a company holds a certain crucial resource, has monopoly over a
> certain crucial infrastructure elements, or was funded by public money
> to expand such infra, then duty to shareholder should not bypass the
> *real* public interest.
>
> For example, phone lines, ...etc.
>
> Why do we have choice of cable and DSL providers despite Bell and
> Rogers owning the last mile? Shouldn't Bell and Rogers refuse such
> competition because it prevents them from gouging clients for the
> "public interest"?
>
>