The fact remains that a corporation can be held legally liable by its shareholders if it fails to take any (legal) opportunity it can to increase value for its shareholders. It is true that, in practice, things like charitable contributions and other "non-profit" functions of a corporation can be and have been argued at law as fulfilling the corporation's responsibility to its share holders in various and sundry ways (Delaware courts, for example, have specifically upheld as legal corporate charitable contributions with the caveat that they have top be "reasonable" in scope and purpose.) Still, even though determining what exactly maximizes and diminishes value can be difficult to do, the general aim and legal responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders, which is almost always legally taken to refer to maximizing profits (of course, by "corporation," I am referring to a publicly-held, profit-making legal entity, not a non-profit or not-for-profit corporation, which obviously runs according to different guidelines.)

This is a matter of fiduciary responsibility. In theory, the articles of incorporation of a company can redefine said fiduciary responsibility in such a way that maximizing value is not the primary interest of the corporation. In practice, it simply doesn't happen- no FA would ever recommend such a company to his clients.

The relevant legal decision is "Dodge v. Ford," though it has been supplanted over the years by other legal decisions (some stronger, some weaker) outlining a corporation's responsibilities.

I suggest you google the expression "corporations as sociopath" and see what you come up with.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108583.The_Corporation_The_Pathological_Pursuit_of_Profit_and_Power

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMUGcpDNakwC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=is+a+corporation+required+by+law+to+maximize+profits&source=bl&ots=yZjmbKX9zu&sig=ylAqvHbpiOh_hIG01YUsazqTBHo&hl=en&ei=hxrJSq2FC9COlQePp5SSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:6STAmBY4dLgJ:www.plu.edu/~tyleron/doc/csr.doc+corporate+law+bound+maximize+profit&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87&search_query=Corporation

Hell, if this weren't true, corporations couldn't engage in "minor" charitable actions -- i.e., the sort which don't generate enough publicity to cause a goodwill increase in revenues. But they do it all the time, most notably in cases where a corporation will engage in purely in-house charitable activity such as matching employee donations while allowing those donations to remain in the employee's name (which of course acts to limit any public goodwill). That's not uncommon at all in large corporations.

You're very good at making numbers say what YOU want them to say.

Was it here on Comic Book Legends where I saw the rumor/urban legend that way back in the day, DC wanted to buy Archie Comics and have Archie Andrews replace Jimmy Olsen as Superman's Best Pal?!? I have to find a link to that story again.

Great Comic Book Legends again this week, Brian! "I believe in Matt Murdock."

And Claudine was made by someone trying to make a point. It has a very clear bias, and you cannot base your entire view of how welfare works in regards to marriage on a work of fiction.

Of course it was done by someone trying to make a point. That doesn't make said point wrong. What political work ISN'T trying to make a point? Second, I never said my ENTIRE VIEW was based on a work of fiction. You did. MY entire view is based on my life experiences as a black man who has lived in ghettos and known people on welfare (including a former roommate) and on statistics and studies. I only pointed out the work Claudine as an illustration of the facts and anecdotes I already know from life experience and readings, not as my sole basis for my conclusions.

I understand what illegitimacy rate represents, and even though it represents percentage and not raw number, it's still a very damning statistic. And there have been studies about the stable nonmarital distinction you mention and the findings are still damning. Also, keep in mind I'm talking about pre-reform welfare, and ALL the benefits it entitled a woman from housing to education money to food stamps and other programs, NOT just the raw figure on the welfare check. Taken as a whole, pre-reform welfare was a significant mode of support when you take into account not only the money it put in your pocket but the expenses it saved you in many other areas as well.

The "illegitimacy" rate you posted is percentage of births, not number of births. The rate is skewed because overall fewer African Americans are having children at all. For example, ten is a greater percentage of twenty (50%) than it is of 50 (20%). The actual number of "illegitimate" children in the African American community has been declining for more than 20 years and is actually lower than it was in 1970. Furthermore, the seventy percent figure is gross: It measures only those children born to unmarried mothers. It does not differentiate between stable non-marital relationships, women who are financially secure but chose to have a child out of wedlock and those who are in unstable or financially insecure situations. Your assumption is that unmarried African American woman = welfare queen. That is a far more sexist and racist assumption than anything the "welfare state" could make.

Welfare payments are barely enough -- and frequently insufficient -- to pay for the cost of raising one child. With the exception of most minimum wage jobs, any job would probably pay more than what someone would get on welfare. The additional money provided to families with additional children is small -- if the state provides $500 for one child, it does not follow that they provide $1000 for two children. The increase is a small percentage of the initial stipend. Therefore, parents who have welfare do not have an incentive to have more children. Got it?

You just made my poiint for me.

No, I didn't.

It’s not incentivising single parent hood,

Yes it is. You get a finacial incentive to remain a single parent, plain and simple.

it’s helping the people who need the help.

By undermining self-reliance, creating a culture of entitlement and dissuading men to marry the mothers of their children and live in the same household as their children and children's mothers? Yeah, big help there.

Yes you’re brought above the poverty line, but twn incomes do actually give a household more money. A husband or live in partner is expected to contribute to the household because he’s, well, part of the household. Therefore they don’t need welfare as much as single parents.

Except there will never BE a husband or live-in partner because thanks to welfare the couple won't feel an incentive to have the man ever move in or marry the woman. In many cases, when you take the cumulative entitlements that were available to a single woman before the welfare reform in the 90s, the total benefits when taking into account Section 8 housing, education scholarships, food stamps, welfare checks and job skills training exceeded the replacement income a man would have brought into a household. Combine this with the feminist movement telling black women that they don't need men and that there's nothing a father could provide that a single woman couldn't and you have a good picture of how great liberalism has been for the black community as far as providing horrible pathologies. But hey, it's the intentions that count not the results, right? If liberals are so desperate for the US government to make withdrawal plans for failed, expensive wars, I suggest we start with a withdrawal plan for the failed, expensive War on Poverty.

People get encouraged to game the system by trying to have their cake and eat it too. They try to collect welfare as a single parent while not marrying or livng with the fathers of their children so as to keep him "off the grid" so that they can secretly get his money too. This is why you can trace the skyrocketing illegitimacy rate to the implementation of the Great Society.

It’s simple maths dude.

I agree, increased welfare leads to a proportional increase in illegitimacy and social pathology accompanied by zero reduction in actual poverty since its institution. Simple math all right. Simple mathematical formula for failing the black community that is.

It's simple maths dude.

And Claudine was made by someone trying to make a point. It has a very clear bias, and you cannot base your entire view of how welfare works in regards to marriage on a work of fiction.

Didn't know that about DD. I've been meaning to go back and pick up his run.

If a comic’s politics are so different from your own that you have to whinge and gripe about it, save yourself some money and don’t buy the comics.

No one's whining, at least I'm not. I'm used to comics being dominated by liberals, as long as it's not excessively preachy or obnoxious. I just think it's ridiculous to DENY that liberals dominate comics though. Pointing out a fact is not the same as whining about it.

As for the welfare thing, I understand that it is tried to income level, but it is income level per HOUSEHOLD. The household as a whole must be below the poverty line. Many times when you introduce a live-in husband into the household, the total salary for the household exceeds the poverty line and the family no longer qualifies for welfare. If you ever want to see a fictional movie that is a very realistic commentary on how welfare undermined marriage, see Claudine. Synopsis and description below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudine_(film)

If a comic's politics are so different from your own that you have to whinge and gripe about it, save yourself some money and don't buy the comics.

The same goes for any reason that you complain about comics. If a hobby isn't fun anymore, don't keep it up.

I've got to say, the American system is slightly appealing to me as, as you say, the partie's standpoints are a lot more clearcut.

Particularly these days when the three main parties are so close to the middle they bleed into each other sometimes...