They eat each other.

Directors must be salivating at the idea of actors who never say “I’m cold” or “that’s dangerous” or “you’re a hack.”

Maduro was ostensibly arrested on drug trafficking charges.

Seems trumped-up to me.

Difficult to decide whether to post articles on LAMF and nottheonion. And no shortage of such articles.

Umm, ackshually, these are prediction markets based on futures contracts, not gambling.

Very legitimate business activity.

Right. The real story is that they’re wondering, not whether they’re bad.

Legally, CEOs have a duty of loyalty — they are legally liable if they are working on behalf of their company’s competitor to sabotage their company. They also have a duty of care — they can’t just withdraw the company’s cash and light it on fire.

There’s no law saying that a CEO must “maximize shareholder profit.” None. It’s not a law. It doesn’t even make sense. Non-profits have CEOS and they don’t maximize profit. How would you even legally prove a CEO failed to do that? Should Tim Cook be sued because he didn’t buy NFTs when they were on the ascent to maximize short-term profit?

As a practical matter, if a board doesn’t like the direction a CEO is taking or the CEO’s efficacy, then they can take steps to remove the CEO. But there’s essentially zero legal recourse for shareholders.

This myth comes from a paper from Milton Freedman (or one of his acolytes) that argued a CEO should be paid principally in stock to align the CEO’s interests with shareholders. But studies by actual economists show that leads to looting the company. E.g., fire all the employees, stock goes up, CEO cashes out before the shit hits the fan.

Or a plumber.

I don’t care for Donald.

Wait, come back! We want to mine your humanity to make Mark into a real boy!

Thanks to the legal concept of fiduciary duty to shareholders

Imma stop you right there. That’s not a thing.

Hey!

I’ve been to Ireland, too.

They used to be fucked in the head.

They still are, but they used to, too.

Generally.

Kakistocracy.

Oh no how unfortunate.

You can walk away and be criticized for going your own way instead.

Dull fact: “man” and “men” are originally old english for person (male or female). By 1900, the sense had shifted to male person.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/men:

“a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo” [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann “human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero;”

Less dull fact: old english used “were” to specify male (person). This still lingers in modern english with “werewolf” — male (person) wolf.

Welcome to the dull men’s club!

It’s almost like he’s stupid. And wrong.