For nuclear power to make money it will require enormous public subsidies:

There is a huge public relations campaign to win political support for a technology that doesn't work without those subsidies. Lead by Bill Gates, who not coincidentally, is investing big time in the industry. And like all PR campaigns its pitches are emotional and aimed at people's identity.

What is holding up new civil nuclear power plants is economics. The alternatives are cheaper and quicker to build and more reliable with lower operating and maintenance costs. \

Tell me about the decisionz your board made to the detriment of the company's long term financial health because they were morally right.

There are also important differences, even if the Supreme Court justices argue otherwise. In fact, the only real value they share is avarice. And lets be clear we are not talking about the individuals who work for the company but the company itself. No matter how empathetic a person is, the corporation's financial interests constrain that empathy

.

And to be clear I am talking about large for-profit corporations. If you are talking about a non-profit corporation or even a family business with a corporate structure those are a whole other animal where the owner's interests are not only financial.

I doubt many judges are reading this and I am not making or interested in legalistic arguments.

I thought you were arguing legalism so they are people. The fact is that collectively the decisions in corporations are made based on the financial interests of the corporation. To the extent someone knowingly makes a decision to the financial detriment of the company they are not fulfilling their responsibility to the company. They can't say I took all the money and gave it to the poor because it was the Christian thing to do and my first duty is to serve God. Nor can they say I gave the money to the local library because I think its important to the community. Or that I decided to help the homeless. Or that I decided not to foreclose because the widow needed a place to live.

Until someone in your country hacks our servers or uses our intellectual property. Then you have jurisdiction?

If you have customers in a country you are doing business there. If you have no operations in a country, then no they don't have jurisdiction because there is nothing for them to regulate. No one is suggesting someone in Mexico can sue a Canadian company in California. The question here is can someone in California sue a Canadian company in California.

Only if they do business in multiple jurisdictions. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can set up a company in North Korea and not be subject to US regulation of its business in the United States?

Yes, in both cases. And the point was that corporations are interested in one value, their enrichment. They are essentially sociopaths. They have no human values beyond avarice. You apparently agree and I will accept your semantic quibbles about my calling that "the bottom line".

What difference does it make whether it is protecting current financial value or increasing it? The answer is none.

Not if you mean each dollar adds to your own benefit or there is an account somewhere with money sitting in it. You (and your employer) pay a tax on wages that is used to pay current recipients' benefits. Your own benefit is relative to how much you paid in taxes only because it is also related to how much you earned in wages that were taxed.The tie is not direct, you don't get paid based solely on how much you paid in taxes.

Which is not of any financial value?

Again what are the "interests" not served? The answer is ultimately the company's financial interest.

They could care less about consumer sentiment that doesn't translate into customer purchases. Likewise the good will of policy makers needs to translate into policies that serve the company's financial interests. Corporate donations to candidates are investments, not charity. Its not as if they just want to be liked.

It is if they consider the corporation's interest as its financial success. In fact, if they acted in their own financial interests to the detriment of the company's they would be violating their fiduciary responsibility to the company.

Well, because the money isn't going "in" anything. But if you consider taxes "paying in" to government, then sure. But a lot of people use that term and see it like paying into their 401(k).

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean any individual in the group shares a characteristic of the group. Much less that every individual does.

People understand racism is wrong, they still use the same fallacious logic that supports it.

It means they have a responsibility to act based on the company's best interests, not based on their own interests or values. Corporations interests are solely financial and they define their success financially. To the extent they consider other values its ultimately because they think those values will add to their financial success. i.e. the bottom line.

You aren't going to find many successful CEO's that have walked into their board and said "This is going to cost us a lot of money with no payback, but its the right thing to do." And you aren't going to find many boards that would approve of the proposed action if they did.

More anti-boomer bigotry. The answer is because smoking pot was an identity issue for rebellion when people got 30 years in jail for possession.

You are applying the characteristics of a group to the individuals in it. That was the basis of eugenics and it is the fundamental flaw of bigotry. Its the reason someone would call it bigotry in the context it was used, applying a set of stereotypical characteristics to a specific group. The two martini lunch is a TV show trope, not reality for very many people.

I suspect many of the boomers who have more stuff have it because they are old enough to have received their inheritance. If they don't spend it all, their kids will also find themselves better off than others.

I actually think that is a terrible idea. Mostly for political reasons. It essentially turns social security into a welfare program designed to transfer wealth. Social security has survived in part because people get what they paid for or at least some semblance of what they paid for. With means testing, it becomes another tax on wealth, the more you earn the less you get back. And that reduces the shared stake that people who have other resources have in its continued success.

Social security is essentially an annuity where everyone pays the same amount. Those who live longer than expected have the additional benefits required paid for with the money saved on those who die earlier than expected. And the money needed is much less than needed now with everyone theoretically saving enough to live to be 100.

But that guarantee also means people who saved more than enough can spend their extra money without worrying they won't have enough when they are 95. They can give money to their kids now, instead of making them wait until they die. And young people can spend the money they otherwise would have had to save. Providing everyone with a secure retirement has huge benefits for most people.