I can't stand this mentality. Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
Same shit happened when he pledged 99% of his stock charitable causes. Everyone was up in arms about how the organization was an LLC instead of a charity, claiming he did it purely for the tax benefits, despite that being bullshit.
I guess at the end of the day, once you are a billionaire for creating a successful company, everything you do is based entirely on greed. I'm sure we can come up with a self-interest reason Bill Gates is spending hundreds of millions eradicating malaria too.
Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
Depends on the CEO and company. The behavior of a company reflects the behavior of its CEO. Microsoft and Facebook both have a a history of bad behavior.
"bad" is relative. The CEO's of the tobacco companies had a history of knowingly killing people. Microsoft was aggressively anti-competitive, Facebook was (and still is) very much opposed to privacy on the Internet.
A company is many cogs. The fact that Bill Gates was anti-competitive doesn't make him, the individual, a bad person. That's very clear from the work he's doing now. So assuming that all decisions stem from greed, from anyone, is a silly assumption.
Whether Bill Gates is a good or bad person is only a relevant question to himself and maybe some close acquaintances.
For the rest of us, the relevant point is predicting their behavior, and in that context, the phrase certainly applies. As long as he's CEO and the largest shareholder, Facebook's actions are Zuckerberg's decision and responsibility.
> I can't stand this mentality. Why do people think that because someone is a shareholder/CEO in a company, all their deeds from that point on are purely self-interest?
That's not exactly it, but I would like if you could show me an example of a CEO doing something publicly which would go against the interest of their company.
That's a false dichotomy. A CEO can do something that isn't motivated by benefiting the company without it being something that goes against the interest of the company.
I fail to see where throwanem "clearly [implies] that in the context of [the] story, Mark Zuckerberg does what's best for Facebook". If anything throwanem is making an generalization of Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook based on the context of their previous actions.
Many people assume since they are usually motivated by their self-interest others are too.
The fact is, getting what I want and giving others what they want are usually not mutually exclusive. And anytime there is a conflict, there is usually an acceptable compromise.
